Wikipedia talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr–Jun)

Happy Easter/Fools Day! 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.

April
May
June
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) 18:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Do away with significance as a criterion altogether

Consensus is clearly against this proposal, both in original and revised/clarified forms. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently, WP:ITN has this to say about the significance of a story:

"It is highly subjective whether or not an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting. Generally, proof that an event is being covered, in an in-depth manner, by news sources is required. Caution should be taken when assessing news sources for prominence, because most major news outlets provide individualized experiences for each user, based on geography and browsing history. What one user sees as a top headline may be buried for others, and vice versa. Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites for this reason."

I think this is a particularly good example of why, like with Recent Deaths, we need to do away with the significance criteria outright. Currently, the attitude is that something being in the news doesn't necessarily make it a newsworthy story, but all of that depends on who happens to be evaluating a particular item on ITN/C at that time, thus making the process more about the personalities of the voters themselves rather than of actual newsworthiness in the story. Notability is assumed for any article that is posted on Wikipedia and is not currently undergoing a deletion process. We ought to be able to assume that something is newsworthy if it has a Wikipedia entry rather than try to determine newsworthiness on subjective criteria which varies from voter to voter.

I know this has been proposed before, but with the creation of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, I feel this should be brought up again. We post way more RDs than ITN entries every week now.--WaltCip (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Agree with everything the OP said. WP:N is the importance criteria for Wikipedia, so too should it be for ITN. We satisfy the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN, get more quality and informative articles to the main page. And before you scream "arghhhhhhhh celebrity gossip" or whatever, here is the thing: If someone writes a quality update to the Kardashians twitter war THEN POST IT. Our WP:Readers have most likely heard of them and will be interested. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the statement ... We ought to be able to assume that something is newsworthy if it has a Wikipedia entry ... for me is a bogus assertion. This would open the floodgates to any nomination about any subject being covered by any news site. Even taking a look at the BBC homepage now, we could potentially see "Ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson jailed at Leeds court", "Grenfell Tower inquiry: Dad blames firefighters for son's death" or "Mariella Frostrup: Men face 'double standard' over celebrity lust" being nominated because Tommy Robinson, Grenfell Tower and Mariella Frostrup all exist. And that's plainly going to be a complete disaster. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how it would be any more "disastrous" than the way we currently have the criteria set up for RD, which is to assume notability if the subject has an article, and which you yourself supported, as I recall. All it would mean is that stories get posted faster and move off the queue faster. I'd take that anyday over seeing Fernando Lugo on the main page for 12 days in a row.--WaltCip (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Because death is death and is thus inherently notable. Kardashian posting another Instagram photo which might get 10 million likes is not. Beyond the absurdity of accepting that as an encyclopedia we should be posting the top hits of the tabloid, we would also render ITNC as unusable since we'd get dozens of nominations per day. What a crock. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Death is not inherently notable, as we have in the past refused to post subjects on ITN who were notable only because they died. Also, I contest the notion that we'd get dozens of nominations a day. Each individual Kardashian Instagram photo isn't tracked inside her Wikipedia article. If there's nothing in the article to reference back to, it wouldn't be posted. Only anything that can be included in the relevant Wikipedia article in compliance with current standing policy would be posted. If anything it would encourage more diligence in maintaining the articles to ensure we don't post patent garbage on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And let's face it, what's garbage to you and I may be of seminal interest to another reader. We shouldn't fall into the trap of practicing academian snobbery just because we feel a sense of being "above it all."WaltCip (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No, sorry, wrong. If someone is notable enough for an article then their death is inherently notable. We would become a news ticker and have hundreds of nominations a week, something that would render the project completely untenable. Try using Wikinews or WikiTRIBUNE or some news portal if you want to publish anything without editorial oversight. This isn't about being a snob, it's about quality encyclopedic content on the main page. Very different. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think WaltCip's point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we'd post those stories if there are objective, well-sourced, non-stub articles about 2018 jailing of Tommy Robinson, Grenfell Tower fire updates, 2018, Social views of Mariella Frostrup, 2018, or Kardashian Instagram photo of May 29, 2018. Given the number of stories that get nominated at ITN/C right now with quality issues, I really don't anticipate the ITN box updating too quickly to be a problem. We could focus on addressing article issues instead of bickering about notability at ITN/C. Davey2116 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
That is very different to the proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What you're saying is not what the proposal is saying. Is that any clearer? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, you just repeated what you said. Sorry for not being clear before; if you think the proposal is saying something different, then I would like you to say what exactly you think it's saying, so that we can move this discussion forwards. Davey2116 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Your assertion is incorrect. It is not about bespoke articles created for a particular news item, it is about the nomination of any article relating to a news topic which contains a suitable update and is of sufficient overall quality. Better? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's better, but my point still stands. If there are substantial well-sourced updates to, say, Tommy Robinson (section "2018 jailing"), Grenfell Tower fire (section "2018 blame controversy"), Mariella Frostrup (section "2018 social views"), and Kardashian (section "Instagram photo of May 29, 2018"), then yes, we'd post those. Now there's also an extra condition that the rest of the article must be of good quality since we're posting it to the MP. Tommy Robinson's seems to have a good update, so I think posting it would be in the spirit of ITN (which is, again, to bring good-quality updates to the main page). Davey2116 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
You're right TRM, all those items are in fact "In the news". Mariella Frostrup is a crap article and not updated, Grenfell Tower is a decent article but not updated, Tommy Robinson (activist) is missing refs and has a crap update. Say all three of them were in good shape, with adequate updates that covered why they were in the news ... what would be wrong with posting them? How would our WP:Readers be adversely affected? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Because I selected just three. I could have selected 23. From tonight. And that's what will happen. And we will have nothing but trivia posted. Our readers expect to see encyclopedic articles posted on the main page, not WP:TOP25 crap. Just remove ITNC altogether and post a link there if you'd rather do it this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
But whats "trivia"? The Man Booker prize? Some plane crash? A bicycle race? It didn't happen with RDs and I don't expect it would happen with blurbs either. Just like RDs, if you think a story ought not be at ITN, take it up at AFD and the whole project benefits. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No, that's nonsense. If a story about a new lemon-flavoured drink made it onto the news, using real lemons, we'd hardly question the notability of lemon yet the existence of the lemon article where the new lemon-flavoured drink may be covered should not become the target of an ITN story on the main page. The project would be inundated. You may not be aware but we only have to deal with around two or three RDs per day (not that many notable people die every day). I could nominate 23 stories for today for the UK alone right now. That's what this proposal advocates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
TRM if someone found enough WP:RS about a lemon drink to write a standalone article, or update "lemon" enough, complete with background, history, development, marketing and reception AND do it while the item was demonstrably "in the news", I'll tell ya, I'd have to support it. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
How would you determine which of 22 other nominations to post when there is space for five? 331dot (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Fake problem, it's not happening with RDs, the quality gate is keeping tons of them off. What's the problem if the box turns around every day (it won't, but so what if it does?). --LaserLegs (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no point to ITN if it moves so fast no one can find what they are looking for, or blurbs aren't there long enough for people to see. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
More like "fake assertion by Laserlegs". We only have a handful of notable individuals dying every day and many of those are stubs so are not nominated. As I noted, from the UK, in one evening, I could nominate 23 ITNC items. And we don't even have mass shootings! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This is literally a rehash of the same dead arguments from ITN/RD. On May 28th there were 21 RD entries - and that's without the NHS murdering any children!. Two of them were nominated (both by you) where one article is admittedly borderline. You could nominate 23 articles today, fine, show me 23 quality articles with sufficient updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it literally (sic) is not. I supported RD because it was manageable (max. 3 or 4 per day) and objective (dead=dead). Oh, and when are you finally going to realise that I don't need to show you 23 quality articles with sufficient updates!!! That's not how ITNC has ever worked!! I can just nominate anything I like as long as it's "in the news". Then we all need to debate quality for each one (23 from the UK from yesterday alone). Is that clearer? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose opening the floodgates for a news ticker. TRM covers my view pretty well. People are already free to use the rationale of "it's a slow period" to make a nomination. RD is a different case. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And regarding WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, that is simply a user collecting (perhaps valuable) information; it is not a policy, guideline, or even an essay. I think it shouldn't really be cited here or on ITNC as I have seen today. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
How exactly does it "open the flood gates for a news ticker" and what exactly is a "news ticker" to begin with? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I have at this time nothing else to add other than what the other opposers have said. To quote Stormy clouds below, "There is a massive global flow of news, and only space for five blurbs in the template - we need to divide them somehow. As such, the system at present is fine in my view, and this would needlessly complicate it." 331dot (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It would enable anyone to nominate anything which has an article covering something relating to any news topic and no discussion over its notability would be allowed. So I could nominate anything that was in the news, as I have already pointed out, three stories from just now. Indeed, it would be interesting to see what would happen if this was road-tested (as RD was, as you know, very successfully indeed). ITN/C would blow up and become unusable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I couldn't agree more. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And as I pointed out, those stories would all fail their noms because their either crap or not updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There'd be dozens per day. This is unmanageable and promotion of the trivial. No good at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok so 331dot your oppose is based on a scenario that you're unwilling to articulate how it would come to pass, and what the adverse affects would be if it did. Duly ignored. Thanks for nothing. Feel free to open an RFC to change the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN to "provide a curated list of topical items deemed important by the contributors at ITN/C". --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't need to, as Wikipedia is "a curated list of articles on topics deemed notable by Wikipedia users". I don't need to articulate that which is explained by others and I believe you are actually aware of already. You always ignore the other three points when you state the first one. I have nothing else to add. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
You're right, Wikipedia is already governed by WP:N and it's working just fine for the whole project. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
All of Wikipedia is not posted to the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Right-o, just go ahead and open an RFC to change the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN to "provide a curated list of topical items deemed important by the contributors at ITN/C" and we're all set then. You should do the same for TFA and OTD as well I imagine. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't need to, as everything on Wikipedia is like that, but thanks for the tip. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
You're right, everything on Wikipedia is required to satisfy WP:N. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Where are you going with this? Just in circles? This is irrelevant and would only apply to articles which are created solely for the purpose of news items. And that's not what this proposal is stating. Perhaps we should move onto something that might progress the discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - in my view, such a change would render ITN redundant, as Portal:Current events still exists, and was not deleted as proposed. Moreover, it attracts significant viewership in its current form. In the portal, news stories are reported directly as from reliable sources, and I find it to be a very useful tool for navigation to articles. ITN's job is different - it is to provide an easy path for users to navigate towards good quality articles which are relevant due to being in the news, and deemed of significance by consensus opinion of editors (which I feel is apt even when I disagree on certain items). It also maintains visibility for articles which are prominent in the news for longer than the portal, which is not an issue in my opinion - GDPR, the 8th Amendment vote and the UCL are all still relevant to our readership now for instance. Delays occur during slow news cycles, and I don't think that abandoning significance as a criterion will resolve this. There is a massive global flow of news, and only space for five blurbs in the template - we need to divide them somehow. As such, the system at present is fine in my view, and this would needlessly complicate it. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support We've seen too many otherwise-good articles get rejected at ITN for being "not notable enough" as determined by a very small number of !voters. To me, this goes against the purpose of ITN, which is to bring quality updates about topics in the news to the front page. Of course, if readers will be looking for a topic, we should post it. Given the number of stories that are nominated to ITN that have quality issues, I don't anticipate the box updating too quickly to be a concern. Also, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is utterly ridiculous as written; to be frank, if there's a good-quality article about an event covered by RS, I'd be willing to support it, regardless of the number of deaths. Davey2116 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
If you feel not enough people are participating, then feel free to go out (on Wikipedia) and encourage people to participate. It is true ITNC is only as good as the people who participate, but making us irrelevant doesn't help the project. Readers look for updates to Kim Kardashian's hairstyle, should we post that? You undercut your argument by conceding that many nominations are made but fail due to quality issues, that would only be exacerbated if the floodgates are opened. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If it's covered by RS and has an objective, well-sourced, non-stub, prose article? Yes. This way we can focus on addressing article issues if possible, instead of bickering about notability. Davey2116 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment two things, this change, if it receives any consensus, would need to be extensively trialled (like RD) for, say, a month, to check how it operates. Secondly, "We post way more RDs than ITN entries every week now." is in the original nomination. Um, so what? The actual question that should be asked here is "Are we posting more or fewer stories at ITN than we ever have?" If statistically significantly "yes" then we can seek to address the underlying issue (is it an increase in the demand in quality perhaps?) and if "no" then what's the problem? I guess this proposal is one way to get a mass shooting or two permanently sitting on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. It is always those who fail to get things posted or don't like what is posted that want to change the system. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree 100%. Just like we did with the very successful change to ITN/DC, a trial is a must. TRM you're already a strong bulwark against crap articles getting on the MP, but we've seen recently that even with the current criteria consensus to post a "barely notable" event with a crap article + one rogue admin == the item posted. I can't see this change as being worse. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it would be an order of magnitude worse. There would be dozens of nominations per day from all the pet projects who curate their own little fiefdoms well, and articles would pass through ITNC, scores per week, the very epitome of a news ticker. Most of it would be trivia and the real encyclopedically valuable stories would get lost. As for the rogue admin, just get rid of him (and the others who don't seem to understand how ITNC works – the main page is not a sandbox). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
If an article has no encyclopedic value, it should go to AFD. Consider this: When there is no more Support This is a very important story, people might actually READ the articles, check the refs, check the prose, and comment on the substance instead of the style. A long shot maybe, but I like to dream. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No no no, wait. No-one is suggesting that the lemon article has no EV, just that the existence of the lemon article with a tip of the hat to a new lemon drink would be grounds for nomination and therefore a debate over quality, suitability of update etc etc etc, and we'll be doing that dozens of times per day if this proposal succeeds. You need to drop the AFD stick now, no-one's talking about that. Perhaps you misunderstand. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Well it wasn't a "stick", it was a legit consideration. Let's work on this lemon example though, because I like it. Say someone writes a quality update to "lemon" about a new drink, with background, history, development, marketing, reception ... all the things that you'd expect for a substantial update (so much so that MOS would probably demand it be broken into it's own article), and demonstrated that it was in fact "in the news" ... then whats the harm in posting it? I expect at least some of our readers like lemon flavored drinks. Your concern depends on people beating down the door with quality updates and I just don't see it. As for filtering out crap, I think ITN/C can handle it. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
But your proposal is the same as the status quo because you're placing the requirements on all those sections to prove the significance. Bravo! And no, ITNC would be flooded with proposals. As I said, I'd be happy to nominate 23 items from tonight from the UK alone. I'm not sure how ITN/C would "handle it", especially when stories currently sit ready to be posted for up to 24 hours already..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm reading what I wrote up there, I said substantial update, I don't see the word significant there ... some engvar issue crossing the Atlantic? We judge the substance of an update all the time: for sports stories, plane crashes, whatever the community has a pretty good handle on when something is updated enough. Throw out the "significance" requirement and suddenly admins don't have to judge of there is "significance consensus" and probably the noms won't die on the vine. That's whats killing noms like MH-17 and Cyclone Mekunu: unclear consensus on significance. ITN/C is handling the extra RD load just fine, I think it's a shining example that would easily apply to the rest of ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I really believe this whole proposal can be simplified to the question "should ITN be a news ticker?" since that seems to be what you want. Why do we need human involvement at all? Just write a bot to feed articles to the main page. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
To gauge article quality and that the item is actually in the news? That's probably a good start. What exactly is a "news ticker" anyway? I think ITN should fulfill it's WP:ITN#Purpose without trying to editorialize. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
There are other purposes besides the single one you are fixated on. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is unworkable for the regular ITN section. For RDs every person (or animal) has a single article and this allows a "clean" and simple notability threshold. But a news item may result in anything in a dedicated article about the event, a new section in an existing article, a new paragraph, a sentence and a few tense changes, or even just an additional row in a table. Literally thousands of articles are updated every day due to new events - films are released, songs make the charts, new scientific papers are published etc. etc.
Even if we're just looking at new articles, as a reductio ad absurdum the day after the 2018 UEFA Champions League Final there was the 2018 EFL League Two play-off Final which decided which team would be promoted from the fourth to the third tier of English football. Both have dedicated articles, and they're the news (the latter more locally to Coventry than the world), but only one makes the remotest of sense being linked on the main page.
Figuring out what is worth publishing on the main page is hard, but that's not a good reason not to do it. --LukeSurl t c 21:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that this was also proposed less than a year ago: Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_63#remove_importance_criteria. --LukeSurl t c 21:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are many unintended consequences which come from proposals to discard significance as a policy. We have, as a community, enough problems with notability as a guideline as it is. This would only cause a serious lack of control and oversight towards a front-page element of Wikipedia which needs all the control and order it can get. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a semblance of a good idea here, though it needs refining. We can't completely do away with significance criteria, but I've long thought that we ought to post just about any event that is "in the news" by some objective measure (front page of the websites of news outlets in a given number of countries, for example) and has its own Wikipedia article of a reasonable quality. We'd post a lot more sporting events that only a small segment of the world care about, but they'd rotate off quicker as well, solving the problem with the "freshness" (or otherwise) of ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not clear what text is being proposed to be deleted, changed, or added. The gist is that ITN criteria is deemed too exclusive. However, Wikipedia:In_the_news#Significance doesn't currently define significance; it's more describing that there is no overriding consensus on what is usually approved for posting. My suggestion is that any proposal needs to have safeguards against WP:NOTDIARY updates in articles.—Bagumba (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The proposal is to basically junk the significance criteria all-together and align ITN with ITN/DC. As for your concern, WP:N(E) applies to all articles nominated for ITN or otherwise. It's a useful tool and is already in place. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:N(E) applies to articles about an event. ITN would need similar filter criteria about event updates from content in a general article e.g. a trending topic posted in a Kardashian bio.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think WP:TMI applies there? I don't think ITN needs separate policies from the rest of the project, if we'd just enforce the existing policies. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment A lot of the opposes seem to be copy/pasted from Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal. It's been two years since we fixed ITN/DC, and back then a lot of people complained about "the flood gates" and "news tickers". None of that happened. No barbarians at the gate, no complaints from readers, just more quality articles making it to the main page. There is also a LOT less bickering and fighting about "importance" and "notability". It worked great, and it's way past time to extend that same successful model to the rest of ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a totally different ball of wax, as has already been pointed out. There are far more news stories than deaths. Not every news event is notable; some get outsized attention for various reasons, some don't get the attention they probably should. I am still waiting for an answer as to how you would decide to post 23 simultaneous quality articles in a space for five, in such a way that they would actually be seen by readers(which is the claimed goal). 331dot (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
There aren't going to be 23 simultaneous quality articles, just like there aren't > 5 simultaneous quality articles about recently deceased. You're trying to decide what should be in the news, that's your problem. I go by what's in the news, and let WP:N be my guide. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course there will be. There is far more news than deaths. My local paper is full of news that by your criteria would merit posting. What about the other 100,000 regular editors who all have their own local paper? How would you decide what to put in five spots when you take consensus out of it? I don't want ITN to parrot the press. A bot can do that. 331dot (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Um, I just told you that I could have nominated 23 stories from the UK for yesterday alone. I'm not concerned with the quality, we can fix that once I've nominated the stories, after all it'll get more eyes on each target article, right? There is absolutely no read-across from RD, as you have been told time after time after time here. Just playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU won't really have any positive impact on the outcome for you here other than to ensure others realise this proposal is completely flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose the significance criterion is the only thing keeping ITN from being flooded with trivia. If anything we should do away with the quality criterion altogether. Banedon (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Quality is a required element if we are highlighting any links off the main page. --Masem (t) 00:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
      • It's also almost as arbitrary as significance. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Nope, frequently and easily evaluated. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
          • ^[citation needed]. Frequent critiques of quality boil down to "inadequate referencing" which is like saying that simply by removing the tagged material, the article becomes postable! Banedon (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
            • In some cases, where the material is not particularly critical to the topic, then yes, removal is an acceptable cleanup to get to posting. But removal of unsourced, critical/essential information is not acceptable because quality is also how sufficiently comprehensive an article is. --Masem (t) 01:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't support doing so, but getting rid of quality requirements makes more sense to me than this seriously ill advised proposal to make ITN a news ticker. 331dot (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I admit that I was expecting the rather chilly reception to this proposal, particularly considering, as someone else pointed out, another version of this was proposed not that long ago. However, I still contend that the significance requirements for posting on ITN need to be severely lessened from where they currently are, even if not done away with altogether. While it might be true that dozens of noms a day would be untenable, our current posting rate is not very timely. The most current item on WP:ITN dates back to May 26th. We have much, much more quality content that can be shown on ITN that is hampered due to each person's arbitrary and subjective definition of newsworthiness, which ultimately boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--WaltCip (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Reduction (or removal) of significance would drop the rate of posting further as more and more lame nominations are made, all of which would need to be reviewed for suitability and all of which would potentially draw resource from the nominations which carry significant encyclopedic value. After all, why would we want a mass shooting nominated every other day? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Those mass shootings that happen every other day don't each have their own individual Wikipedia articles, because they don't satisfy WP:N. As for the ones that tend to make the news here in the U.S. because they happen at schools or large public areas, and so have articles as a result, they represent a small portion of those shootings. It wouldn't be the deluge that you're predicting.--WaltCip (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Are you saying that your proposal relates only to news items which have their own article? If so, you didn't make that clear at all and we should start over. If not, then it would be trivial to add a paragraph to the List of school shootings in the United States article for each mass shooting which would represent a sufficient update for it to be postable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    I apologize if I didn't make that clear. Yes, that was the thrust of my argument.--WaltCip (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This would fundamentally change the entire purpose of ITN and result in dozens of nominations every day. There may be good reasons to relax the significance criterion or encourage more nominations, but this proposal would be cracking a nut by detonating a nuke on it. Take a glance at P:CE for just a small sample of the number of possible items, see how strongly it is affected by WP:BIAS, and imagine how on Earth we could keep up with assessing several times that number of items on ITN/C whilst still giving editors enough time to comment. More importantly, such a high turnover of unimportant stories would not help readers and be detrimental to the quality of the encyclopaedia. The notability threshold for being in ITN needs to be much higher than simply having an article (thousands of which are created every day). Citing RD as an example is counter-productive because I think removing the significance criterion there has been a complete disaster (although that's a discussion for another time). This proposal has huge unintended consequences that would be extremely damaging. Modest Genius talk 12:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Removing the bluster from RD debate has been an unheralded success, we should all be very proud of our eclectic RD listings which has drastically improved the quality of vast numbers of articles which would have languished incomplete without such an approach! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Among other topics that have articles but I wouldn’t consider suitable for ITN: local-level elections, minor sport leagues, etc. I imagine this proposal as ITN/R, but with the idea that any article that exists would be worthy of posting, and that bar is far too low for full blurbs. Granted, there are many areas in which I would love to see more stories posted to ITN (generally these fall short due to poor-quality articles or lack of updates), but dropping the bar across the board isn’t the solution. SpencerT•C 13:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose even after the amendment. I believe that the news ticker concerns are very valid. Lepricavark (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed change would remove one of the more important checks preventing ITN from becoming an indiscriminate news ticker. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of proposal

Just putting a section break here. Per TRM's suggestion, I'm amending the above proposal to clarify that the relaxation or removal of significance requirements should apply specifically to news items which have their own article, as these would be presumed to have met WP:N requirements.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  • If its own article is required, would the current blurb on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 have qualified, because it's about an update to a 2014 plane crash. Also, it could encourage undue article splitting just to qualify for ITN.—Bagumba (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Does that mean I can nominate Paul Hurst in this proposed scheme as he's just become Ipswich Town F.C. manager? He has his own article, and I could update it with a para or two. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would still disagree with that. For example, anything Trump related would be automatically posted for the most part. We very much need discretion on significance to make sure the ITN boxed reflect not the news, but a broad global community across a range of topics, that happen to be in the news. --Masem (t) 13:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought about this as well, but didn't see how it was workable. We're already judging the update and quality of noms and are doing a fine job of it. Look at Portal:Current events few of those articles are MP ready. We would be just fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liberalize, don't remove

There is no consensus for this proposal, leaning towards consensus against. The suggestion to have a trial received no support. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If an item is making headlines, significance is assumed. That lets things like MH-17 get posted. If it's not making making headlines, you can still argue for significance and get it posted. This lets things like record painting sales get posted. We already do a pretty good job of judging if something is in fact "in the news", this would guard against local elections, but still satisfy WP:ITN#Purpose #1. Quality gate would still stand for all, obviously. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There is probably room for tweaks. Can you provide the specific wording that you are proposing?—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I would support adding a clarifying statement that significance is determined by objective measures of significance, such as volume of text in reliable sources or level of coverage, and that votes assert a lack of significance (or that assert significance) without referencing such should be summarily ignored. Significance is important, but as with anything, assertions in the absence of evidence are meaningless. If one asserts a story is not significant in the face of reliable sources that show it is, we should ignore that assertion. --Jayron32 02:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Volume is a bad bad measure. That 1) favors western news (US and UK primarily) over other parts of the world, 2) makes no distinguishing element between day-to-day events and actual NEVENT-meeting news (eg: right now, every little thing Trump says gets far and wide coverage that would certainly pass this mark of "significance" by volume but is not news, and would allow floods of celebrity news) and 3) is the antithesis of "ITN is not a news ticker". Being covered by news is a necessary element, but volume has never been a consideration for precisely these reasons. And given that we typically average one story a day that gets posted, this would be far too liberal and likely exceed the capacity the ITN box on the main page is set up to handle. --Masem (t) 02:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm OK with you establishing any reasonable objective measure of significance, so long as it's reasonable and objective. The situation we have now, which consists solely of people deciding something is not significant merely because they don't want it to be is suboptimal in the extreme. First, establish what we need to judge. I don't really care what it is, but it should be the sort of thing where any random person could assess the nomination against the established standards and then we have something. The only standard we have now is "Do I care about this myself". That's a shitty standard. --Jayron32 02:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Can't be done, so we have what we have, until the proposal to remove both ITN and DYK from the main page is enacted in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Just stating "can't be done" is meaningless. It could be done. You just don't want to, because it would mean that you have to give up power over what gets posted based on your singular personal opinion of what should be important. --Jayron32 05:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No, not at all, I'm stating it's impossible to produce an objective, global, non-systemically biased measure of significance. Of course, you have completely failed to suggest such a measure. So yes, this is a waste of time unless something concrete is proposed, the rest of this is all conjecture and self-satisfying hand-waving. And please, don't put words into my mouth, that way you're heading for a desysop. Oh, and I'm all in favour of such a solution if you could provide one, because then we could get a 'bot to run ITN and remove the rogue admins from the project entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not just an ITN thing, it's a Main Page. Highlighted content off the Main Page (those bolded) are expected to be some of WP's best work; that principle applies to each box on the main page. What is our "best work" can be subjective, but there are some basic minimum article standards that are clearly expected that don't depend on subjective opinions (such as length and sourcing). --Masem (t) 05:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what statistical sample you are looking at which indicates that we post an average of a story per day. I don't think that has happened since Trump's first 30 days in office. Our post rate is closer to a story per week. It's abysmally slow. We actually had a timer that we ended up getting rid of which showed the length of time that had elapsed since the latest post, and part of the reason for that was because it always took so long to post things. Fernando Lugo didn't become a meme for no reason.--WaltCip (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It may not be as frequent as one story per day, but it is definitely not as infrequent as one a week. I do know we have had periods where there has only been a few stories posted over a few weeks time (back around the time of Robin William's death, which was a lingering blurb for at least 2weeks after it happened), but that's one period. We've had cases where the entire ITN block has rotated out over a day, leading to some complaining "my blurb didn't get any time at ITN!". It might be slower but it is no way that slow. --Masem (t) 17:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a trial There are ~20 RDs everyday, but we only post 1-2. It's intellectually dishonest to say that the RD process is a success but it could not work for blurbs and provide the same rationale editors gave for why the RD process would fail. Our arbitration of what is significant stinks. It leads to dumb ad hoc requirements like "encyclopedic value" and "MINIMUMDEATHS." It favors heads of state over heads of government. If favors sport that is watched in more countries over that watched by more people. Frankly, "significant" is a weaselly word that tries to obfuscate personal preference for fact. It's why so many editors always seem to find more significance in events that happen where they live, while decrying those across the pond as "local stories." What's the harm in giving it a shot? ghost 16:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Not dishonest in any way at all. I have already stated that I could nominate 23 stories for ITNC from the UK alone for one evening. It will not work for blurbs. You are missing the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Even so, the point of significance being an arbitrarily established subjective standard should still be taken into consideration. There's no consistency in how it's applied. It literally depends on who's logged in at that point in time. We've had complaints before about "American stories being posted while Europe is asleep", indicating that !voters in that region would contravene the consensus that was established at the time the story was posted on account of regional differences.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    To that, I would point back to the discussion above about "minimal time before posting/closing". I definitely felt I was in that camp that we should have noms opened for 24hr minimum to make sure one full cycle of the earth's rotation to get various regional differences, but the more I mused on it, all that ends up on the admin that decides to post "fast" that they take responsibility, which means that's a potentially misuse of the broom to be dealt with in other ways. For example, if (fake) admin "MuricaNumberOne" repeated posted US-centric stories within hours of nomination, and did not heed post-posting complaints to this, that would be reason to take MuricaNumberOne to AN to seek a ban from taking ITN actions. We don't want our hands tampered when there are obvious stories that will or will not be posted. I know I posted Hawkings' death as a blurb in a few hours of its nomination, but I will stand up to that that Hawkings was a figure of clear significance around the globe, and thus was confident that was right. I don't post anything else that fast because I need that consensus for significance (and quality, though I try to review that too myself). --Masem (t) 17:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing item in ongoing events

I saw on the page for the news that not only the current event listed, it is missing the 2018 lower Puna eruption as a current event. Felicia (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you actually can't add it (you're not a sysop, right?) and we go through WP:ITNC for these discussions and to seek consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Brackets or parentheses?

This is very minor, but I was slightly concerned about this kind of edit (pinging Nixinova as courtesy). As far as I can remember, we have always used brackets instead of parentheses to indicate the status of the thread, and I am not sure why we are seeing parentheses recently. Now, I am not really concerned about which one should be the standard to use, but I think it's unnecessary to go around changing them for the sake of consistency unless if there is a consensus to do so as a result of a discussion. Alex Shih (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Stephen told me it has to do with linking to closed sections, and that parentheses are preferred. The change seems to have occurred in the last few months, and I know of no discussion, but it seems sensible. Vanamonde (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
There were about three discussions a week or two ago, around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm okay, seems sensible to me too, thanks for the links guys. Can I just make a note here that when fixing markups for others, I think it should still be the good practice to mention that in the edit summary. I'll try to use parentheses too moving forward. Alex Shih (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't put a reason for that in the edit summary because I thought everyone knew, sorry.  Nixinova  T  C  06:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Previous discussions are here and here.  Nixinova  T  C  06:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • When I do it, I check "minor" and put "brackets" in the summary. Seems like a minor thing to be worried about. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Jul–Sep)

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.

July
August
September
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) 13:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=847316959"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news
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