| Revision as of 18:58, 23 February 2020 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,837 edits →Survey← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:16, 23 February 2020 edit undoAmakuru (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators111,967 edits →Survey: oNext edit → | ||
| Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
| :::::::If the issue is that we covered an election that did nothing to the status quo and are failing to cover other "news", that's because no one is nominating other news to consider for nominations. We are not selectively only covering election results, only that volunteers are more often going to put those forward than other news stories. If you want other news to be featured then stories of appropriate importance with articles of appropriate quality have to be nominated. --] (]) 18:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC) | :::::::If the issue is that we covered an election that did nothing to the status quo and are failing to cover other "news", that's because no one is nominating other news to consider for nominations. We are not selectively only covering election results, only that volunteers are more often going to put those forward than other news stories. If you want other news to be featured then stories of appropriate importance with articles of appropriate quality have to be nominated. --] (]) 18:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose'''. There is no problem here to solve. ] (]) 14:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC) | *'''Oppose'''. There is no problem here to solve. ] (]) 14:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose''' per the above points. Political events are clearly newsworthy events, and there's no need to change what we do just because one editor seems unable to accept the explanation and consensus from the discussion above. — ] (]) 23:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal for a companion page, ] == | == Proposal for a companion page, ] == | ||
Revision as of 23:16, 23 February 2020
 | Please note:Please do not post error reports for Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.
Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITNC. Thank you. Please do not write disagreements about article content here. Instead, post them to WP:CEN. Thank you. |
 | This talk page is for general discussions on In the news. Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion.
|
 | This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
In the news toolbox |
|---|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
RD image instead of blurb
It seems that discussion at Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted_to_RD)_RD:_Kirk_Douglas decided the Trump photo should be removed, but WP:ITN currently says images should be for blurbs, even if not the first one. Is this a new precedent to consider RDs for images if they are more recent than a blurb? Or is this a one-off Trump case? Current available blurb alternatives are Peter Mutharika or Sam Mendes (BAFTA Best Director).—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think the section immediately above this answers your question. WP:ITN is not policy. It's debatable whether it's guideline too. (But to me it's, since I believe it needs not be necessarily named in a certain way and/or templated to make it so.) So this is not "a one-off Trump case", there's no policy that says the picture must be associated with the blurbs. It's just a normal thing, giving that circumstance warrants posting this particular pic with RD. You can however disagree with the decision for this particular case, but that would be on WP:ERRORS; or join the above section to discuss the guideline/information page itself or lack of clarity on its status. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's unrelated. I'm asking the rationale for the image selection, I haven't called it an error.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Unrelated with what?. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's unrelated. I'm asking the rationale for the image selection, I haven't called it an error.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think this was a reasonable decision, though I still oppose just cycling the images "for variety" we would get more images if we included RDs --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support we could amend the guidelines to read "an image for the most recent RD item can be used if no such image exists for the top blurb" or "an image for an RD item can be used if there is consensus in the nomination to do so". I don't see the issue here. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - An image from a RD may be used, subject to no suitable blurb image being available, and the most recent RD with a suitable image being chosen. In all cases, blurb images to take priority over RDs. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
On entertainment ITNR awards
See the current discussion about the 92nd Academy Awards at WP:ITNC for origins of this, but basically, what we have been finding lately is that entertainment awards like the Grammys, BAFTAs and Oscars, all ITNR, generally have articles that are mostly tables and lists of nominees, winners, and presenters/performers at the ceremonies, with little else that is written about the ceremony. This has recently led to question what type of quality and update is expected from these. But the target per ITNR has been the ceremony page
In contrast, our ITNR academic awards : Nobel, Booker Prize, etc. which lack the same type of formal ceremony, usual identify the award recipient(s) as the target. Which means we are usually getting a significant update or otherwise will already be at quality and only needs to document the award (based on my experience in updating Nobel winners).
I would like to suggest that for entertainment awards, we do the same: the target should be the article on the key winning item(s) as currently listed at ITNR, instead of the ceremony itself. So for example, for the Oscars, this would mean the film that wins Best Picture. This means the quality of that work , actor, or whatever should be good enough for main page, and the award updated on that page. This would 1) eliminate questions of what quality we actually expect award ceremonies to be at) and 2) focus on the actual winners for ITN. --Masem (t) 17:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- This needs a bit of thought. Each Nobel prize has 1-3 winners, so it's possible to bold link them all in a single blurb. For something like the Oscars, is Best Picture alone enough for an ITN blurb, rather than the article that lists all the winners in various categories? I'm not sure either way, given that it could still be linked in the blurb, just not bolded. A related question is why these award articles aren't getting prose updates; given the vast amount of column inches in mainstream media sources, there must be something that can be written about them, beyond a mere table. Perhaps critical reaction, quotes from the winners etc. Shifting the update requirement onto the individual winner article will still need more than a one-sentence update. Modest Genius 18:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- In the scheme proposed, we'd still link to the ceremony page, but it would not be a bold target anymore, as to eliminate questions of its quality/update.
- When you compare to Nobel winners or other academics, if the Nobel winner's article is already in good shape before the Nobel is given, then the update is going to be generally a sentence or two (but 90% of the time, the article needs a significant sourcing and content overhaul from experience). So I would say the same would apply to a actor/director/film/whatever , if it is in good shape before the award is given, the update likely will not be much.
- As for what else could be added to the ceremony articles, in general: we don't want to cover "trivial" matters like the Red Carpet and fashion aspects, and generally the speeches are interesting and certainly could be documented, but rarely have any importance beyond the night itself. I am sure there's a few acceptance speeches that have been memorial in past ceremonies with longer-term effects, but generally not always. Additionally, when you get to something like BAFTAs over Grammys/Oscars/Emmys (the latter being overproduced ceremonies, the former a more traditional affair), sometimes there's just not much to give. --Masem (t) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I like this idea. It seems like bolding the winners is more useful than bolding the awards ceremony, as it directs readers to the higher quality article. I think we should go with that; perhaps a note at ITNR noting that for awards of any type, we should bold the winner and not the ceremony or award name, but that we should normal-link the award ceremony instead. --Jayron32 18:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment same debate often for sports (especially season endings vs single games) and elections. So what if it's mostly tables? Vast amounts of relevant information can be communicated efficiently with tables. I've never understood the fixation on a "prose update" for articles where a table of values are just fine. Instead of worrying about a different bold target, lets just stop fretting about posting lists. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds great. So every time Templeton Prize or similar comes up, we can post it if the update to the list is satisfactory. Sounds good to me. After all, it abides by one of ITN's core tenets, to direct readers to things they might be looking up.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, not the same thing at all actually, but thanks for suggesting. We could do it for `select rand() from worlds_most_important_soccer_tournament` though --LaserLegs (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- What a weird response to a normal comment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, not the same thing at all actually, but thanks for suggesting. We could do it for `select rand() from worlds_most_important_soccer_tournament` though --LaserLegs (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds great. So every time Templeton Prize or similar comes up, we can post it if the update to the list is satisfactory. Sounds good to me. After all, it abides by one of ITN's core tenets, to direct readers to things they might be looking up.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- For a sporting event, eg: Super Bowl, World Cup final, while there may be tables like box scores and individual stats were relevant, the article should be dominated by prose of events leading to that final match, like site selection, promotion/marketing, the route the final competing teams got there, etc. And so just presenting box scores and say "that's it" is a bit weak, a recap is reasonable to add. For an election, the same type of argument applies: basis for election, principle candidates, how they got there, things like debates/etc. (which in some nations may be subpages, etc.) but again, to not follow up the election results table with some small recap is weak. But in both those cases, the progresses are generally transparent - we can follow them and write about them. When we get to either entertainment or academic awards, the process is much more opaque. We may not even know the shortlist of nominees (Nobel). As such, while there's a number of things we can set up ahead of time, like with the Oscars, some info on the ceremony, it is hard to be as detailed as sporting events and elections since we don't exactly how nominees got to be nominees. Hence its a different approach that is needed here. --Masem (t) 22:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would also note that widespread, indepth, and broad coverage of both sporting events and elections exists out in the wild for people to use to write and expand and create very detailed prose synopses of both sporting events and elections. Award shows don't have as much to say about them. For awards specifically, I think that the target article(s) we need to care about is the winner(s) and the presentation event is less important. That is not true of sporting events or elections, where it is quite possible (and desirable) to create an extensive prose-based article about them. --Jayron32 13:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Taking the Oscars as an example, in the run up to the event there were huge numbers of newspaper articles and television reports that profiled the nominees, discussed reasons why they may or may not win etc. Then once it happened, there were more articles about why Parasite was a worthy winner, the implications of a foreign-language film winning etc. Why couldn't those be used to write a single prose paragraph in the awards article? Modest Genius 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Specifically with the Oscars, I would generally not consider the pre-guesses of who would win encyclopedicly significant unless there was a strong clear consensus of a given film being the likely frontrunner or why certain nominations fell the way they did. If it is just a bunch of random, disjointed speculation, that doesn't help in the long-term. The post-analysis, here the importance of Parasite's win, are in articles that have come out a couple days after the event, which I'd would expect, just as there was some additional coverage of production choices for the show (which I did add already for this year's). Again, part of the issue is that the awards process for entertainment awards is nowhere close to the transparency as sporting events, which 90% of the article can be written before the event runs. An award presentation can maybe get to 50%, add another 25% the day of the ceremony, but the other 25% is stuff that comes days later as things settle out. --Masem (t) 16:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Taking the Oscars as an example, in the run up to the event there were huge numbers of newspaper articles and television reports that profiled the nominees, discussed reasons why they may or may not win etc. Then once it happened, there were more articles about why Parasite was a worthy winner, the implications of a foreign-language film winning etc. Why couldn't those be used to write a single prose paragraph in the awards article? Modest Genius 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would also note that widespread, indepth, and broad coverage of both sporting events and elections exists out in the wild for people to use to write and expand and create very detailed prose synopses of both sporting events and elections. Award shows don't have as much to say about them. For awards specifically, I think that the target article(s) we need to care about is the winner(s) and the presentation event is less important. That is not true of sporting events or elections, where it is quite possible (and desirable) to create an extensive prose-based article about them. --Jayron32 13:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I was surprised that the current Academy awards blurb was posted as quickly as it was, as the article did not seem to me to have enough prose or interest -- I quickly navigated away from it and towards the much more informative press coverage, and I suspect other readers would too. I'd strongly oppose changing the ITN/R rules so that we could post bald lists like this one more readily; it encourages editors to leave our articles in a stubby state when abundant sources are available to improve them. On the other hand, I've no objection to making the winning entity a target article, if that article is sufficiently developed and updated. In general, we need to return to the purpose of ITN -- not a news service, but a way to direct our readers to well-developed encyclopedic content that puts the news in context. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Again, a fair question to ask is "What encyclopdic information can be added based on the abundant press coverage of the event to the existing article?" Anything involving the red carpet and the afterparties are not encyclopedic, so we're left with what is covered by the ceremony, and that becomes to what level of detail is excessive. We could briefly describe every acceptance speech but that has little encyclopedic value. --Masem (t) 01:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposal
Based on the above discussion, which seems to be stalling, let's see if we can get a rough consensus for an addition to the instructions. Let's say we add something along the lines of:
- For ITNR items related to the winning of awards (including, but not limited to, Nobel Prizes, Academy Awards, Pritzker Prize, etc.) it is normal to bold either the person winning the award, the work which won the award, or both. In most circumstances, we should not bold the article about the award ceremony or the general list article about the award itself; such articles are usually very light on prose and mostly concerned with the general topic, rather than the specific event in question. A non-bolded link for such articles is usually appropriate instead.
- Support as proposer. --Jayron32 15:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support this essentially codifies the status quo, recent Oscars excepted. I feel like this isn't something we should have to write down... --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Its not though, if you look at ITNR, the recent discussion on Oscars showed why the status quo got questioned. --Masem (t) 16:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support as from my OP above. --Masem (t) 16:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Masem. He gets it. WaltCip (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Question isn't this already in ITNR? Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article. at the top of . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banedon (talk • contribs)
- Note that for the Academy Awards, Grammys and a few others, it adds "Awards page" after the ITNR. This suggestion would remove that and make this stance above the guiding principle. --Masem (t) 15:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Good call. — Amakuru (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support', nice idea. Stephen 22:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense to add this.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Irish fail to elect a clear majority, giving us a chance to take a look at ourselves in a clear light, and the open source culture.
The Irish election seems to be up there all week. It says the Irish vote failed to elect a clear majority, as though that is news. The Irish government has not elected a clear majority since before I was born, since the seventies. The news about it is that Sinn Fein polled the majority of votes for the first time ever, possibly having been the first party to out-poll Fine Gael and Fianna Fail since before the last clear majority government. If a news outlet published the story like that, it could be construed as biased.
When are we going to get the politics off the main page of Misplaced Pages? It's not a fine point, it's a major issue. You've had this complaint perennially, about the content of the news that goes through. It's a good complaint. It's an important complaint. Politics is always partisan in this world. Even China and Russia are electing governments these days. It's a solid complaint.
Dear Misplaced Pages, please do not reduce the importance given to coverage of government leadership. Please stop it altogether.
It is common knowledge across the site now, the articles which support these stories, about polls and leadership issues, are literally one of the banes of Misplaced Pages as it stands today.
In western democracies, leadership polls tend to have a little over 50% turnout, with somewhere between half of the voters to two thirds of the voters failing to get what they want. When they come here to Misplaced Pages, they have come to look at the encyclopaedia. Most people having been let down as standard in an election, they don't want to see any more about it.
Misplaced Pages and its foundation have a clear agenda when it comes to politics. We should be promoting open source culture and relative news more importantly than anything else. There isn't enough room here to represent popular media and we do not understand the partisan events reported. This is not a social media site. This is not a site for popular stories based on the sake of their popularity. You all know this is true. I promise you, taking this back to the mission is going to be far more satisfactory for both the readers and the contributors. It is about what Misplaced Pages is. ~ R.T.G 15:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- We're not posting election results because they are popular news stories, but because changes (or lack thereof) at the national government level for most of the countries on the Earth have significant impact in world events and politics. Eg: if Trump wins the next election, that's still significantly important news as it means four more years of the same. We do want to strive to be apolitical in announcing results and if our wording is misrepresenting the impact of the election results, call that out in ERRORS or something. I don't know enough about the Irish gov't to be able to address your point specifically but that definitely seems like an issue to bring up to ERRORS. --Masem (t) 16:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- The wording of the blurb was discussed on WP:ITN/C; commentors were well aware that Irish elections have not had a clear majority for decades. However, there were three parties which did almost equally well, and it's unclear which of them will enter government. Sinn Fein did not win this election any more than Fine Gael or Fianna Fail did, so it would be unfair to focus on a single party. We could either list all three of them in the blurb, or keep it short and let interested reads click on the link to the article to find out more. As for the rest of your comments, ITN items are selected for their encyclopaedic value, not their popularity or to annoy people who voted for someone else. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not an open source advocacy organisation. Modest Genius 16:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Why do we announce government leadership issues at all? We haven't the space to cover it in a non-biased way. Sure, anything posted has to have a modicum of mention in an encyclopaedia article... but is that the same thing as promoting encyclopaediac content? I can't remember seeing a story about freedom of information, or even a link to the Signpost. WPITN and Signpost are like unrelated entities from totally different sites. There isn't even a link to previous stories. A quick check of the history of the template shows no sign of Wikipedias recent birthday and 6 millionth article milestone. Was that even reported by WPITN? It's not news for Misplaced Pages nearly as much as an opportunity to reach Wikipedians with popular media stories... ~ R.T.G 17:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- The political leadership of an entire country is an important topic of long-term encyclopaedic value, and repeated long-standing consensus among editors has agreed that they are sufficiently important to always appear in ITN if the article is sufficiently updated. ITN blurbs are short factual statements, deliberately designed to avoid biased coverage. You appear to be misunderstanding the purpose of ITN: it directs casual readers to quality encyclopaedia articles which have been updated to reflect recent events. It is not a news ticker, an opportunity to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, or a place for news about Misplaced Pages. There was no ITN blurb on the 6 millionth article, but there was a big celebratory banner at the top of the whole Main Page. The Signpost exists for news about Misplaced Pages of interest to editors; it's a completely different audience and purpose. Of course they cover different things and rarely overlap. If you want to help select encyclopaedic items that appear in ITN, please join the discussions at WP:ITN/C. If you prefer Signpost-style coverage of Misplaced Pages, WP:POST/N is the place to do so. Modest Genius 18:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Right great wrongs? That's about external issues. The anniversary of the first moonwalk, relatively recently, was accompanied by a whole week of content from all sections on the main page. ~ R.T.G 18:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it was, using WP:TFA, WP:OTD and WP:DYK. Not WP:ITN which as its name suggests, is about items that are currently newsworthy. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- You don't think the 50th anniversary of the moonwalk was "in the news" from every major news reporting outlet on the planet? I assure you, it was in the news supported by a series of newsworthy events. If WPITN wasn't on board, that is because WPITN wasn't on board, and not because of anything else. ~ R.T.G 00:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- We can only consider what is nominated. (I don't recall if that was). We don't generally note mere anniversaries- and I'm not sure what notable event related to this anniversary would have merited posting. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- This year it's the 75th anniversary of everything that happened in 1945 - and that's a lot of things, as I'm sure you're aware. Items at ITN tend to stay there for more than one day, thus making them pointless apart from on the actual day - hence the use of OTD. Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is a section, List_of_spacewalks_and_moonwalks_1965–1999#Commemorative_stamps, which could have been used, but wasn't even updated let alone proposed, for a chance to support the festivities. There would be no point even suggesting it in current light. Stamps? As important as government leadership issues? It literally drains the mission out of us. ~ R.T.G 08:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- You don't think the 50th anniversary of the moonwalk was "in the news" from every major news reporting outlet on the planet? I assure you, it was in the news supported by a series of newsworthy events. If WPITN wasn't on board, that is because WPITN wasn't on board, and not because of anything else. ~ R.T.G 00:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it was, using WP:TFA, WP:OTD and WP:DYK. Not WP:ITN which as its name suggests, is about items that are currently newsworthy. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Right great wrongs? That's about external issues. The anniversary of the first moonwalk, relatively recently, was accompanied by a whole week of content from all sections on the main page. ~ R.T.G 18:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This is all covered in Misplaced Pages:In_the_news#Significance, elections also have the addendum Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Recurring_items. Additional guidelines are listed at WP:ITNC. You're free to read and comprehend these documents. If there is an issue with any current main page feature, you can refer to WP:ERRORS. This talk page is for "general discussion of the In the news section of the Main Page". I'm not sure what else is to be done here. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, that doesn't cover bias at all. It literally supports it saying that no other reason than superficial preference will be considered. "Recurring items" simply lists elections, and "#Significance" literally shirks reason at almost two pages of length. This complaint is about the general content. When I've looked at this before, I've not had the impression that editors are working towards an agenda. Even Rambling Man, who would come out as a leading voice against this complaint if there is any uptake of it, can be quoted in the past as saying the elections will "fill" the section up with "shite"! But don't let us consider our own sensibilities now, even the most sensible of us, right? (huh?) These government leadership issues are like, wow... No seriously... wow... the only item on the section all week is the Irish election... this thing sucks, and it must be said, because you all know it is true. Sure, even I am interested in the Irish election, but when I see it as the most important thing on the main page of Misplaced Pages for a whole week, I am through the floor. I mean, have you not purposely conspired to drive me here to make this complaint? Are the gods not punishing me today and every day? And more seriously, it really is a partisan topic, all the way past the point of war. The only thing more partisan than political leadership is an actual punch up. Everybody knows it... ~ R.T.G 08:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- The reason for "When I see it as the most important thing on the main page of Misplaced Pages for a whole week, I am through the floor" is actually simple. Currently no newer story at WP:ITN/C has gained consensus to post, so the Irish election is sitting on top. Such lulls happen and already happened before at ITN. Anyone complaining about that is welcome to nominate a newer story. Yes, politics is boring, but this is how the grand world scheme has been working for centuries (maybe except direct democracies). Brandmeister 09:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- ITN blurbs are arranged by date, not importance. No-one is purposely conspiring against you. Modest Genius 12:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- I apologise for the humour there but indeed, if the Irish election does not start to move down the list, I fear that the sky may fall down or blow away..
- Brandenmeister... there are a ton of new stories but WPITN isn't about delivering the news to suit Misplaced Pages. There's no angle in the mission. There's nothing to fall back on. Government leadership is literally the main focus of the section since years. 8 days, and it is long precedented, and we can't have stuff like advances in medicine, freedom of information... There's nothing to fall back on while certain topics swamp the section in between gaps where there are nothing. How can we accept that? WPITN should be used to have people out searching for news that suits the site and encourages broad content. Narrow news is bias. It's the world we live in. ~ R.T.G 14:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not all genres in current events are equal. I invite you to look into the top ten of highest grossing movies of the last ten years, see that it is monopolised, and come back and tell me we can follow popular culture blindly and call ourselves fair and balanced. It's just not a view on reality. ~ R.T.G 14:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- We do post advances in science and many other stuff, just check the archives (like novel antibiotic substance, malacidin, which I nominated in 2018). Government changes occur in this world more frequently than notable scientific stories (particularly given there are over 200 sovereign countries), so naturally they are nominated and posted more often. The main page basically reflects what was picked up, nominated and posted in a given timeframe (which itself often reflects the current worldwide situation), so the content may not always be a balanced mix of various topics. Brandmeister 16:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Brandmeister, that's two years old. I've just wrote below that I'm not simply repeating myself, but I am repeating this one point frequently... You are saying that is just the way it is. That WPITN is swamped by government leadership stories because that's just the way the world is. You are basically saying that you agree but you do not want to consider change, or that you prefer government leadership issues taking the frame. You aren't going to prove me wrong any better than simply getting a bunch of you together to say you don't want to hear it. There's too many leadership stories going across the template. They aren't doing anything for the encyclopaedia. The excitement around elections almost always sours. It's a false economy. It is fair to claim something better is a possibility, thankyou. ~ R.T.G 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- That's not about what we personally feel should be in the encyclopedia, but about objective encyclopedic value. A new leader of a fooian country is encyclopedically valuable. New elections in a country's legislative body are encyclopedically valuable. So saying that "There's too many leadership stories" and "they aren't doing anything for the encyclopaedia" misses the point and continuously arguing about it is unhelpful. Brandmeister 20:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, encyclopaedias are not hot off the press. We are about carefully studied, historic information. Over 90% of these leadership issues are trivial, even though they are at the top level of what they are. Beside that, to report changes in one branch of government is brainwash. We only report changes in one house, and we don't report appointees to the judicial branch. It's ridiculous. It's not doing any good here. I'm so bored of looking at WPITN every other day and being reminded you haven't picked this up yet. You are putting stuff on the main page. Please at least want to appear balanced. It's so important, the main page of this site. I hate putting them down at length but leadership issues are pretty naff and we shouldn't be pressuring them here. A pillar of neutrality. After accuracy and content it's like the most important thing on the site. I'm glad to see you are discussing a little more weight to entertainment above but it's just not enough yet. ~ R.T.G 06:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- That's not about what we personally feel should be in the encyclopedia, but about objective encyclopedic value. A new leader of a fooian country is encyclopedically valuable. New elections in a country's legislative body are encyclopedically valuable. So saying that "There's too many leadership stories" and "they aren't doing anything for the encyclopaedia" misses the point and continuously arguing about it is unhelpful. Brandmeister 20:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Brandmeister, that's two years old. I've just wrote below that I'm not simply repeating myself, but I am repeating this one point frequently... You are saying that is just the way it is. That WPITN is swamped by government leadership stories because that's just the way the world is. You are basically saying that you agree but you do not want to consider change, or that you prefer government leadership issues taking the frame. You aren't going to prove me wrong any better than simply getting a bunch of you together to say you don't want to hear it. There's too many leadership stories going across the template. They aren't doing anything for the encyclopaedia. The excitement around elections almost always sours. It's a false economy. It is fair to claim something better is a possibility, thankyou. ~ R.T.G 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- We do post advances in science and many other stuff, just check the archives (like novel antibiotic substance, malacidin, which I nominated in 2018). Government changes occur in this world more frequently than notable scientific stories (particularly given there are over 200 sovereign countries), so naturally they are nominated and posted more often. The main page basically reflects what was picked up, nominated and posted in a given timeframe (which itself often reflects the current worldwide situation), so the content may not always be a balanced mix of various topics. Brandmeister 16:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Despite the OPs insistence that mainstream, reliable, serious news sources did not cover the event, I can find dozens of in-depth, highly detailed, and reliable news sources from around the world that covered the Irish elections before, during, and after the event. The repeated assertion that this was not a significant event does not bear out by the evidence. No matter how many times he repeats it, the coverage of the event in reliable sources DOES exist, so repeatedly claiming it isn't significant simply doesn't have evidentiary support. --Jayron32 16:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Have you, for goodness sake, seen Donald Trumps haircut? Would you like, and I am not joking now, to see him and Kim give each other a kiss, by way of impersonators? Well call me Dixie, are we not talking about the same publishers? Misplaced Pages is NOT hot off the press, now is it? Well then, media coverage is no better than a google search in terms of notability. Now I may be crazy, but I have got a really sane point here. Political leadership issues, party progress... following that is all bad news if one of your pillars is neutrality. I'm not trying to turn you against politicians... I'm trying to turn you against nurturing their popularity mission on Misplaced Pages. ~ R.T.G 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Understanding the change in majority party control in a major government is not at all about being political, it is simply reporting a change change or status quo that does have impacts on world relations. There is not one iota of WP showing a political leaning by this type of coverage. --Masem (t) 23:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Have you, for goodness sake, seen Donald Trumps haircut? Would you like, and I am not joking now, to see him and Kim give each other a kiss, by way of impersonators? Well call me Dixie, are we not talking about the same publishers? Misplaced Pages is NOT hot off the press, now is it? Well then, media coverage is no better than a google search in terms of notability. Now I may be crazy, but I have got a really sane point here. Political leadership issues, party progress... following that is all bad news if one of your pillars is neutrality. I'm not trying to turn you against politicians... I'm trying to turn you against nurturing their popularity mission on Misplaced Pages. ~ R.T.G 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus seems to be firmly against RTG's interpretation of what ITN should be (never mind I have never seen him participate in ITN/C in recent years). I might be more swayed if more people shared RTG's opinion rather than just him repeating it with impassioned language. How many other people agree with him?--WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Walt, There is no qualifier for having a valid opinion. It's in the guides, I assure you. I think you will find the reason the section has stagnated for so long this time is because those who would hunt for a broader outlook have been frustrated here over time. I'm not simply repeating myself. Address the issue. All this part is in response to your statement which addresses me personally. Don't blame be for responding when you invoke my moniker. It's not fair to do so. ~ R.T.G 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The OP has escalated the issue to Jimbo Wales. Probably nothing left to do except await His decision. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Survey
Gauging interest to determine if we should put a moratorium on posting politics and political leadership news on WP:ITN, as posting political stories might be considered contrary to the mission of Misplaced Pages and WP:5P2. I'm not averse to opening this up as a full WP:RFC if that's needed.
- Neutral as nominator.--WaltCip (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This would be contrary to WP:ITN#Purpose, if a blurb or article has a WP:NPOV issue that's what WP:ERRORS is for. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose We have basically a single editor who seems unwilling to accept years of accumulated precedent and consensus regarding what we cover and how. This is an overreaction, to put it mildly. ITN should continue to cover changes in government and the results of national elections in a manner that is both DUE and NPOV. Mentioning one political party's performance when they did not even win a plurality would have failed both. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- No please. This would be wrong solution to a non-existing problem. The OP should understand what all the people above are explaining to them and there'd be nothing more to do here. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The problem this allegedly solves is one that only exists in the OP's head; the main page gets many complaints (many of them from me) for many reasons, but none of them have ever been "how dare you show election results!". It would also greatly increase systemic bias on the main page, since changes of government are one of the rare topics where news events in smaller and non-English-speaking countries typically get adequate coverage on Misplaced Pages to allow us to run them in the requisite time frame; removing politics really would turn ITN into a disasters-and-US/UK-sport news ticker. ‑ Iridescent 13:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Then why do the rules here specifically mention elections as a recurring complaint? "...to allows us to run them..." I didn't say, "How dare you run the election results!" I said it may be problematic to the mission here, and it is definitely getting more weight on the section than is appropriate. Broad extension is part of the sites goal. A narrow newsline overshadowed by politics is >.< ~ R.T.G 18:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- You keep asserting that posting election results is necessary supporting a political stance, which it is not at all. Just because we mention how certain political parties won or lost is not the equivalent to saying we're supporting or fighting against the position of that part, just that that party won or lost the majority in the election in where the government structure is specifically set to recognize the controlling party in power. --Masem (t) 18:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I did not say that at all. I said that in the case of the Irish election it is difficult to report and still appear impartial. Newspapers and television news outlets are openly biased. So if there is no way possible to return a bias following them, they've got you with the blinkers on. I'm not asking for a fight. I'm asking for a broader horizon in one of the most narrow horizons. What I am getting is a fight, just to maintain that I have a valid point. People are literally saying, "Move along now, nothing here to see..." Face that, please. ~ R.T.G 18:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- How is "The Irish general election concludes with no party holding a majority of seats in Dáil Éireann." a statement that could be seen as even biased? That seems like a fully impartial statement within the allowed space for an ITN blurb, and from the standpoint of ITN, suggests that the Irish legislation will have deadlocked issues for the next several years. Now , if the issue is at the actual article, that's beyond the scope of ITN. --Masem (t) 18:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- They've been deadlocked since before I was born. You are trying to hold on to something good by holding everything else back. That's what "the issue" is. ~ R.T.G 18:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand what that has to do with anything. Should news outlets in Ireland and elsewhere not report on the elections for this body since no party ever gets a majority? 331dot (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- If the issue is that we covered an election that did nothing to the status quo and are failing to cover other "news", that's because no one is nominating other news to consider for nominations. We are not selectively only covering election results, only that volunteers are more often going to put those forward than other news stories. If you want other news to be featured then stories of appropriate importance with articles of appropriate quality have to be nominated. --Masem (t) 18:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- They've been deadlocked since before I was born. You are trying to hold on to something good by holding everything else back. That's what "the issue" is. ~ R.T.G 18:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- How is "The Irish general election concludes with no party holding a majority of seats in Dáil Éireann." a statement that could be seen as even biased? That seems like a fully impartial statement within the allowed space for an ITN blurb, and from the standpoint of ITN, suggests that the Irish legislation will have deadlocked issues for the next several years. Now , if the issue is at the actual article, that's beyond the scope of ITN. --Masem (t) 18:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I did not say that at all. I said that in the case of the Irish election it is difficult to report and still appear impartial. Newspapers and television news outlets are openly biased. So if there is no way possible to return a bias following them, they've got you with the blinkers on. I'm not asking for a fight. I'm asking for a broader horizon in one of the most narrow horizons. What I am getting is a fight, just to maintain that I have a valid point. People are literally saying, "Move along now, nothing here to see..." Face that, please. ~ R.T.G 18:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- You keep asserting that posting election results is necessary supporting a political stance, which it is not at all. Just because we mention how certain political parties won or lost is not the equivalent to saying we're supporting or fighting against the position of that part, just that that party won or lost the majority in the election in where the government structure is specifically set to recognize the controlling party in power. --Masem (t) 18:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Then why do the rules here specifically mention elections as a recurring complaint? "...to allows us to run them..." I didn't say, "How dare you run the election results!" I said it may be problematic to the mission here, and it is definitely getting more weight on the section than is appropriate. Broad extension is part of the sites goal. A narrow newsline overshadowed by politics is >.< ~ R.T.G 18:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is no problem here to solve. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above points. Political events are clearly newsworthy events, and there's no need to change what we do just because one editor seems unable to accept the explanation and consensus from the discussion above. — Amakuru (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposal for a companion page, Misplaced Pages: In other news
WP:ITN is a binary process; things are either main-page newsworthy and are included, or fall short and are excluded. Of course, articles linked from headlines on the main page get both more attention and more scrutiny, and more work is done on improving them. Having a larger set of current-event type articles with a similarly raised profile would likely contribute to their improvement as well.
I therefore propose that we make a companion page titled Misplaced Pages: In other news, which will include all of the news that makes the main page, as well as the news that falls short of making the main page, but is still reasonably newsworthy. The page would be linked from a "More news" link next to the "Nominate an article" link in the main page "In the news" section, and would likely be structured much like the main page, perhaps with sections for different kinds of news (e.g. law and politics; sports; culture; science and technology; perhaps even a "Misplaced Pages-related news" section; etc.). Because this would be a separate page, items initially listed on the main page could remain on this auxiliary page for a longer time, perhaps for a week or so. The combination of longer-held items, inclusion of items falling short of main page inclusion, and addition of some items that would not be proposed for the main page should be sufficient to keep the page fully stocked. Note that I do not propose this as a replacement for Wikinews (which focuses on originally constructed news articles), but merely as an extension and expansion of the work already done by WP:ITN. Is this a workable idea? BD2412 T 04:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- {{In the news}} already has a link to Portal:Current events, on "Ongoing" when it's used and otherwise on "Other recent events". I don't see justification for maintaining a second page. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. What if we add a link to Portal:Current events piped to the text, "More news" next to the "Nominate an article" link in the main page "In the news" section, then? The current layout does not make the connection all that clear to readers. BD2412 T 05:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- That's Wikinews's purpose. --Masem (t) 04:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- "the news that falls short of making the main page, but is still reasonably newsworthy" - Where exactly do we set the bar for this? I'm not against the idea; I'm reasonably in support of it. I just want to know what kind of threshold we'd be setting. Notability is one of the most contentious and subjective areas of ITN currently.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- PrimeHunter got it just right. This is what Portal:Current events is for --LaserLegs (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- No it's not actually, and there have been recent complaints that it has been used for this sort of thing. Current events is for ongoing current events, not other sorts of news. ~ R.T.G 15:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Another news site wouldn't be appropriate for what was intended to be an online encyclopedia. While I am personally a news hound, I doubt that many of our readers go to Wiki first for news. That said, ITN in its current, more timely iteration provides a valuable ancillary service to readers, especially those who want more detail about current events than they find in basic news stories. But we don't need another news portal. For one thing, there are plenty of news 'feeds' out there already. For another, most Wiki eds aren't trained in journalism principles and techniques. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Marking own nomination ready
Not for the first time, The Rambling Man has objected to my marking of my own nomination (in this case WP:ITN/C#Wallan derailment) as ready, claiming it an abuse of process. As I said at the time, IMvHO the opposes were really rather weak (forgot to say that the IPs oppose was particularly weak, even discountable). Following new information becoming available today, there was a flurry of supports.
It is not bad form to mark one's own nomination as ready, as doing so merely flags up the article to other admins that the article may be in a condition to post, and that there may be consensus for such posting. Any independent admin is then free to either post the nom, or decline to post and give a reason for doing so (e.g. further discussion required, article needs improvement, etc). I fully accept that if I were to post my own nom that would be an abuse of the Administrative Privileges which I hold, which is why I will never do so.
Can we agree that a nominator is free to mark their own nom as ready if they believe that it is ready to be posted? Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think this comes down to unspoken etiquette. Back when he was an admin, TRM would knowingly post his own nominations to ITN if the level of support was overwhelming and those supporting also believed the article was in good quality. I think his main point of contention with you was that you marked the nom as ready when the level of support could be judged by an independent observer as somewhat tenuous. Unlike at DYK, "Ready" historically means that a consensus has been achieved and the article is ready for an admin to post.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I would certainly post clearcut nominations, particularly when they had been hanging around without attention from any other admins. There used to be trust in admins back in the day that they wouldn't be self-promotional, or even be perceived as being biased in that sense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Skip the review process in a collaborative review project? Sure why not partner with a commercial news entity, provide them a link on the page for their effort, and get them to post stuff, reviewed and updated and all professionally. Any of the bigger ones will jump at the chance... ~ R.T.G 15:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I would certainly post clearcut nominations, particularly when they had been hanging around without attention from any other admins. There used to be trust in admins back in the day that they wouldn't be self-promotional, or even be perceived as being biased in that sense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Would it be preferable for the nominator (or indeed any non-admin) to add a "Needs attention" flag first, i.e. "this nomination needs to be assessed if it's ready"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would think so.--WaltCip (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- There would be no issue if the reason to mark ready (or even post) was a case of SNOW and reasonable time had past. I did it before myself, I think on Stan Lee. But if there's clearly dispartity, yeah, leave that for an uninvolved editor to evaluate. --Masem (t) 17:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I take it that there would be no objection to marking one's own nom "" then? Indicating that the nominator wishes an independent decision to be made as to whether the article should be posted or further discussion is required. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- That's reasonable (save for using "()" over "") as long as there's a reasonable amount of !votes that need to be reviewed. Posting an ITNC, getting 1 !vote in 2 hours and then tossing up that alert would be inappropriate, but in the case of the current ITNC in question, the dereailment, this would be appropriate. --Masem (t) 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why any particular nomination which is clearly still very much up for debate needs an admin decision, or a tag that says (Decision required). That's simply not how it works. That kind of "attention needed" (which what we normally use) is for clearcut cases which are being overlooked probably as a result of a lack of passing admins. Claiming that everyone who supported this was doing so "strongly" and every who opposed it was doing so "weakly" was really the nub of the problem here. It's very unbecoming indeed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- In this instance I mostly agree with TRM. It's only reasonable and honorable for eds to in effect recuse themselves from marking their own nominations – or fractious discussions in which they've played a role – as "ready." IMO, it makes more sense for eds with a vested interest, if you will, to mark them "needs attention" but leave it to an admin or possibly some other uninvolved ed to take action. – Sca (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- QFE - the nom cannot objectively grade the quality of the arguments! The first support offers no justification at all. Two others cite the death toll, one cites an incorrect fact, and the last offers "the first fatal derailment of a loaded passenger train in Australia since 2003." That's a lot of qualifiers! GreatCaesarsGhost 18:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, reminiscent of the kinds of bizarre intersections of fact that are cited in gun crimes in the US sometimes. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- !!!!!!!!!!FIREARMS KLAXON!!!!!!!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, reminiscent of the kinds of bizarre intersections of fact that are cited in gun crimes in the US sometimes. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- QFE - the nom cannot objectively grade the quality of the arguments! The first support offers no justification at all. Two others cite the death toll, one cites an incorrect fact, and the last offers "the first fatal derailment of a loaded passenger train in Australia since 2003." That's a lot of qualifiers! GreatCaesarsGhost 18:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- In this instance I mostly agree with TRM. It's only reasonable and honorable for eds to in effect recuse themselves from marking their own nominations – or fractious discussions in which they've played a role – as "ready." IMO, it makes more sense for eds with a vested interest, if you will, to mark them "needs attention" but leave it to an admin or possibly some other uninvolved ed to take action. – Sca (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why any particular nomination which is clearly still very much up for debate needs an admin decision, or a tag that says (Decision required). That's simply not how it works. That kind of "attention needed" (which what we normally use) is for clearcut cases which are being overlooked probably as a result of a lack of passing admins. Claiming that everyone who supported this was doing so "strongly" and every who opposed it was doing so "weakly" was really the nub of the problem here. It's very unbecoming indeed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- We've used (Needs attention) in the past, probably fine. Also fine to mark your own nom as ready. Any competent admin can assess the discussion and either post or remove the tag with comments. It's not a bot action. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- As a completely random idea, assuming it is technically feasible, what if the daily archiving bot also made a table of the "most needy" ITNCs that would sit at the top of the page? By "most needy" I'd define those as:
- Those not posted or manually archived
- Over 48hr old
- Have either a) exactly 1 or 2 support !votes, or b) have at least 3 !votes with a minimum of 1/3rd that are in support
- In this scheme, an uninvolved admin would see those that are needing attention and should address them by either posting them, closing them, or adding something to the header or discussion of clearly why the ITNC can't be closed, like "needs updates" "needs sources" or "consensus unclear". If this existed, then there should be no self-readying as above, it would draw better attention to those ITNCs that may a chance (while leaving, most commonly, RDs with no supports to simply drop off to archives without too much work). There's some programmatic issues for the scripting, and it would not be infallable , and we would have to remind admins this is not a !vote, but it may eliminate this problem. But that may also be too much work if this is the only problem is fixes (I think it addresses other issues too, but that's just my opinion). --Masem (t) 20:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Archives
Why is the template no longer archived? Is it not something a bot could be easily programmed to do? ~ R.T.G 15:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Latest archives from like Feb 17 show templates there....--Masem (t) 15:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- When I look at the page here all I see are Misplaced Pages:ITN archives from 2008-11 in the toolbox. Though I did think I was able to go through them somewhere a while back. Must have been the nominations section. ~ R.T.G 17:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/Archives After 2011, we went to per-month archives. --Masem (t) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- When I look at the page here all I see are Misplaced Pages:ITN archives from 2008-11 in the toolbox. Though I did think I was able to go through them somewhere a while back. Must have been the nominations section. ~ R.T.G 17:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)