Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:10, 11 January 2023

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:ITN/C. 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. Found an error in a current item? Report it on Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors (WP:ERRORS) Nominating a new item to be posted? Go to Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C). Nominating a current item for removal? Go to Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C). Updating the template yourself? Only administrators can do this. For instructions on updating the template, see Misplaced Pages:In the news/Admin instructions (WP:ITN/A) Recurring items? For items which occur more than once, such as awards or sporting competitions, see Misplaced Pages:In the news/Recurring items (WP:ITNR)

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Stephen Harrison (August 16, 2018). "Who Updates Celebrity Deaths on Misplaced Pages?". Slate. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Omer Benjakob (8 April 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Is Immune to Coronavirus". Haaretz. Retrieved 10 April 2020. Indeed, while other websites refer readers to the WHO website on coronavirus, Misplaced Pages refers readers to, well, Misplaced Pages. The overall Misplaced Pages homepage now has a section dedicated solely to the COVID articles whose veracity they are confident about.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

ITNR archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Add ITN/R: The Game Awards

Should The Game Awards be added to WP:ITN/R? 09:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Now that The Game Awards have been posted for 2022, as it had been in 2020 and 2021, I think we can now have a serious discussion about adding this to ITN/R. I don't think there is any need to reinvent the wheel, so I'll just copy verbatim DecafPotato's rationale:

1– viewership of The Game Awards is much higher than things like the viewership of the Academy Awards. Last year, The Game Awards had 85 million viewers, while the Academy Awards had only 10 million, representing a nearly 900% increase. 2– the video game industry is indisputably one of, if not the largest entertainment industries (see: GTA V is the most profitable media product ever ), so it makes sense that its biggest award would have a recurring item similar to the biggest awards for music and film, and finally, 3– the Game of the Year Award gets plenty of media coverage, enough to satisfy ITN.

In my opinion, three successful postings in a row warrants ITN/R regardless of the topic, so I support this proposal as nominator. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support the proposal per discussion this year. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Question I may just have somehow missed it while digging through the ITN archives, but I can't seem to find the discussion/ posting of The Game Awards 2020, and I didn't see anyone link it in the discussion about this year's show over on WP:ITNC. I only found the 2021 posting (which is linked on Talk:The Game Awards 2021). Would someone mind linking the nomination or ITN post? — Gestrid (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You didn't somehow miss it in 2020—it wasn't even nominated. DecafPotato (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thought so. Just wanted to confirm. — Gestrid (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support — It wasn't even discussed in 2020, so WaltCip, you might want to fix that. Regardless, I agree with the rationale (it's mine, after all) and think it should be put on ITN/R—two successive postings is good in my book, and there's no reason to believe it won't be posted again in 2023. DecafPotato (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Story showed considerable levels of opposition; ITNR should be for less controversial stories that are guaranteed to be posted every time. In addition, it receives minimal media coverage outside of gaming-focused publications. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Looking through last and this year's discussion, pretty much the exact same talking points were brought up, and it was posted both times. I suspect the same thing would happen in next year's discussion, too. — Gestrid (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Still very easy to imagine for this TV show to decrease in popularity significantly in a few years. Too soon. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I am even surprised someone nominated it for ITN.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Um... Who set this up as an RFC? Was that necessary? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral As I stated earlier in the month, I think there should be some level of video game representation in ITN/R due to the proliferation and mainstreaming of the industry; however, I still hold some skepticism of TGA and whether it is the right one to focus on. Curbon7 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Too soon / oppose. We literally just had a long discussion about this, which isn't even mentioned by the OP. Since then, the award was posted this year through ITN/C, but there was substantial opposition as well, so it's clearly controversial. Consensus in the recent ITNR discussion was that the awards would need to be posted through ITN/C several times before considering them for ITNR - most commenters were asking for 3 or 4 years of consecutive posting. We're now at two, and they were both heavily debated. So try again next year, if it passes ITN/C without a massive debate. Modest Genius 14:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  It was directly mentioned by OP--the rationale is literally the same, because the previous discussion concluded with a "nominate it this year and then reassess", and given it got posted this year, we are reassessing. I don't really see how the last discussion should be treated as a previous discussion that ended in a no, this is a continuation of the discussion as directly requested by the closure of that last discussion.~~ DecafPotato (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Too soon I think. There has been significant opposition, and I'm not ready to give ITN/R status to something that looks to me rather like a glorified trade show without much independent coverage in the press.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not only there is significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources , but there is analysis of awards in highly reliable source Kirill C1 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  IGN is a gaming site and we cannot use Forbes collaborators (which Paul Tassi is) the others are reliable. Masem (t) 20:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Didn't we just have this discussion. Come back in a few years. If it is posted uncontroversially for several years, then we can start to talk. The prior discussion, closed a few weeks ago, noted it had only been posted once. It was narrowly posted a second time. This does clearly not have the automatic support that ITNR implies. ITNR is for stuff that is basically an automatic posting every year (assuming article quality). I would not call the consensus shown just a few days ago to be "automatic posting". --Jayron32 18:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  See above for the "just had this discussion" response, the previous discussion ended with an agreement from both sides to return to the subject after it was put up at ITNC this year, and now we are here. As for the "ITNR if for stuff with automatic support", no? Plenty of things at ITNR are contested, like sports championships or other award shows (some of which are smaller than the Game Awards both in terms of popularity and industry significance). But those still have majority support, which the Game Awards has (the 2022 nom had 25 !votes to support and 10 to oppose, I wouldn't call that "narrow"). What ITNR means for an item, to me at least, is that "this item has a majority in favor of posting it, and its nature as a recurring event means that new arguments are unlikely to be brought up to change that, so let's just make everyone's lives easier by only focusing on article quality", just as RDs were simplified to focus only on article quality. DecafPotato (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Since you obviously didn't read what I said in the last one, let me quote it to you verbatim. "I think that adding something to ITNR should only follow several (3-4 years) of posting on ITN with minimal opposition. Placing things on ITNR to bypass discussion is putting the cart before the horse." I never said that it should be on ITNR after it passed ITNC this year. What I said was that it needed to pass several years with minimal opposition. This is because ITNR is supposed to be for items for which significance would be functionally unanimous every year. It is NOT supposed to be a means by which to silence opposition. Insofar as significant opposition exists, and it did this year, then this event does not pass that threshold. --Jayron32 16:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I said "there was agreement" to revisit the nom if/when it was posted this year because that's what the majority of people said + how it was closed. That was hyperbole though, and I didn't mean to imply that you said that or that there was consensus to put it on ITNR after this year--just pointing out that the "just have this discussion" seemed, to me at least, to state that it was being immediately proposed after being rejected, when that discussion had a pretty clear consensus to revisit the item after this year, though with no real majority opinion one way or another. DecafPotato (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Indeed, ITN/R is like a reverse SNOW: there is no need to have the discussion because the outcome is obvious. Now, that does not apply to many of the items there now because ITN/R is hopelessly broken. But that is the standard. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  DecafPotato: The standard for ITNR is much higher than a bare majority of support; that kind of support is open to the whims of who shows up that day. ITNR is designed for the stuff for which one could not imagine any serious opposition ever. This clearly does not meet that standard. --Jayron32 18:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  I know many ITNR items a lot of people would've opposed to... Howard the Duck (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Me too, so I don't think Jayron32's assessment is entirely accurate. In fact we did recently have to prune ITN/R of a few items where it wasn't clear that they met the significance standard anymore even if nominated in good faith. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  HtD: You are so close to getting the point. --Jayron32 03:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Famous Deaths in 2022 at ITN

For Barbara Walters' recent death, there was the usual argument about whether she should get a blurb or not. My immediate reaction was that this was a case of bias as we had just blurbed two famous men but were not giving such famous women equal prominence. But theories require testing against the evidence and so I did an initial review of the stats for 2022 which I posted into her nomination. That was immediately closed to shut down discussion so here's a table of relevant cases FYI.

I'm not sure there's a sex bias as Queen Elizabeth has a massive lead over the field though she is quite sui generis. But what I am noticing is that Americans don't seem to get much blurbing. If it wasn't for Betty White, they wouldn't have had any last year and she actually died in 2021. The stats are a bit distorted for figures like Walters and White who died near the year end. White actually got 17 million views for 2021–2022 while Walters' current readership spike is 2 million and counting.

If there seem to be any major errors or omissions then feel free to add or adjust accordingly.

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Table

Discussion

I suggest that discussion start here. FWIW, my position is that all recent deaths should get a brief description or blurb to explain to the reader who they were. Most of the names at RD are not familiar and just having a ticker of such vague names isn't much use. Other languages such as the German Misplaced Pages have a better Obituary section in which all entries are given a similar format and this seems clearer, more informative and more objective. If we did this then the arguments whether to blurb or not would be avoided. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Albright, Poitier and Russell all merited a blurb if not for the instinctive bias against featuring anything American at ITN. nableezy - 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

See Hindsight bias. But we are also not obligated to give everyone who "deserves" a blurb a blurb. Basically we put them up when we feel like it. As to the suggestion for a blurb for everyone, If a reader wants to see all the recent deaths they click on the recent deaths link and there is the list you just described and if the reader has popups enabled, they can see the article lead and top picture from each bio page by just hovering over the link. It might seem that women get less blurbs. From the list 3 out of 16 women got a blurb (18%) and 12 out of 43 men got a blurb (28%). However, if you only consider the ones over 4 million views, it's 3 out of 7 women (42%) vs 4 out of 10 men (40%). So, it might seem we are doing a good job. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Trending topics. My prelim views are that we do not need be making any major changes to WP:ITN or WP:ITNRD based on the above data. However, I think this might be time to introduce a trending topics section either as a part of the WP:ITN box or outside of that. It does reflect quite poor if our mainpage after all these years is still fairly static in its content refresh capability and is not dynamic i.e. tailored either based on audience interest (trending topics), geographic interest (trending near you), or personalized reccos (tailored for you). Trending topics reflects the lowest level of personalization but is still dynamic, whereas tailored for you is the highest level of personalization, while trending near you is in between. This can either be text-based links or better still, images. Requires some amount of creative thinking and might not be in the remit of this group which is largely in a maintenance and operations mode. Ktin (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It is important for us to consider the disparate impact of our practices as to what gets posted. Look at the opposition for Bill Russell and compare to Lata Mangeshkar. All those votes that torpedoed BR would equally apply to LM but are conspicuously absent. Why? GreatCaesarsGhost 22:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I can not speak for the entirety of the community, but I think it could have to do with the individual's note amongst the editing community. Seeing as we are discussing the English language page and Russell was American, we can assume a large number of American responses. I did not vote on Russell's nom, but I know enough about Russell to the point where I considered voting. I would probably have voted "Oppose" at the time. Before the nom for Lata Mangeshkar, however, I did not know of her or her impact, so I chose to abstain from the start. While India has a solid English-speaking population, it's very possible that a higher percentage of the votes were from those who are not Indian, and the non-domestic vote is likely to have a large impact on the posting of a nom because if a person is not known very well internationally, it's not hard to believe that the person's impact may have been narrow. It stands to reason that Mangeshkar may have been more brpadly impactful in large part because of her field (Sportspeople may be well known, but basketball is not nearly as notable as several other sports - I think Shane Warne receiving a blurb and Russell not would perhaps be a good example of this). Just my two cents. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The "major errors or omissions" is that this seems to be an incredibly small sample of the deaths (of people with a Misplaced Pages article) in 2022. How did you choose which people to include in your sample, and which to exclude? The other obvious error is your inclusion of a pageviews column in your table. In the news is not Top 25. Page view popularity does not and should not matter. Possibly the best example of this is that someone who was a head of state and government of their country for 38 years received less than 5% of the pageviews of an an American actor. Chrisclear (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I started by identifying the deaths that got blurbs in 2022. I then looked at other high-profile RDs during the year that might have been considered for blurbing. I then consulted the media to see who they were putting in their summaries of the year's deaths such as the BBC's Notable deaths 2022 to check for major figures that I might have missed. Most major news media have such a summary so it might be interesting to collate them and see who they agree on but that would be quite a bit of work. Such sources, like the views statistic, are evidence. That's what we're supposed to do at Misplaced Pages – work from evidence and sources rather than just promoting our personal opinions. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

But another peson may choose another famous people. It is worth to consider only those who were proposed for blurb. Or to mention all who were proposed for RD. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with the general consensus here in saying that I don't feel like there is a big issue with ITN at the moment. The idea of a section for deaths is interesting, but I think Deaths in 2023 is sufficient enough for doing what such a section does. I think Ktin's "Trending Topics" section would be interesting though, but that should be a separate discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Blurbs are not an award we grant to people for being "important enough". They are a way to convey information to readers. If all we have to say about someone is that they died without anything further noteworthy about the death itself, it doesn't need a blurb. That's what RD is for, the routine reporting of deaths that need no further explanation. If a death is unusual or has some other noteworthy aspects or knock-on effects from it (such as an assassination, unusual accidental death, death of a sitting world leader that causes a succession of a new world leader, a large and noteworthy reaction to deaths, such as well-covered memorial services, etc. This list is non-exhaustive, mind you), then it is something a blurb is needed to explain, we should have a blurb for that. But if all we need to say is "so-and-so died", then they don't need a blurb. Otherwise, we're treating a blurb like a "you won at life!" award, and that's not what they are. We should be in the position of deciding what people we just kinda feel like are important enough. If you want to propose a blurb, propose something additional about the death itself that needs note. --Jayron32 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Ok then why are Pele and Benedict blurbed on the front page right now? Why was Queen Elizabeth blurbed? nableezy - 03:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Bingo. Curbon7 (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  To reply to both, the simple answer is because enough people decided so. Misplaced Pages is based on collaboration and ITN uses it, too. And even based on Jayron's comment, well, look Queen Elizabeth was a sitting world leader. So, check. A Pope emeritus is technically a sitting world leader. Kinda check. Both of them and Pele have massively-covered memorials. Heck, the level of news coverage just of the queues to see the three of them lying in state could approach ITN-worthy. What Jayron maybe didn't explain too well in the later parts of their comment is the generally-agreed "a death where the death itself is a news story worthy of ITN, can get a blurb". Note 'can', it's still up for debate. And that's simply the case with Pele, Benedict, and Elizabeth, on top of being significant people. Kingsif (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No, pope emeritus is most definitely not a sitting world leader. They are a former world leader. The problem with the enough people decided so answer is the systemic bias. The bias that any number of people exhibit for nearly any blurb for an American. Bill Russell was a civil right icon, awarded his nations highest civilian honor, and the greatest champion in the history of American sport. And the opposes were "no - american". nableezy - 04:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Skipping to the important part - this got long-ish. Ok, I'd be interested in how many RDs that are proposed for blurbs are Americans, and how many RDs proposed for blurbs are not Americans, sitting world leaders not included, of course.
I advocated for Betty White on the basis that her influence on early television production, as well as such an enduring career, meant that this being all in one country did not matter. I could not say the same for Barbara Walters, who has equals in many nations and so is not outstanding enough, imo, to meet the 'person was super important' criteria.
In the same way, being (maybe) your nation's best sportsperson means you are among at least a couple hundred people. I doubt that the best sportsperson from ... Mali ... dying gets proposed for a blurb. But Americans often are; the number of !opposes based on locale, then, are kinda just countering the pro-American bias when it comes to proposing RDs for blurbs. The reasons should be more eloquent than what you write, but I'd safely say that a "no - american" !vote can be assumed to be meaning "this blurb was clearly suggested just because they were American, but they have no international notability, their international counterparts would never be proposed for a blurb, so just no".
You also have to remember that !votes are not counted, but judged on the merit of the arguments. That should counter any bias you think is there, because such !votes should be written off. Kingsif (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This was my feeling - there is a sense of pro-American bias that people feel the need to counter, even if the nom is legit. They don't do that for other countries, which results in an anti-American bias in what gets posted. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

She was probably blurbed on Misplaced Pages on every language. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There were 15 blurbs during the year and I reckon only two cases fit Jayron32's theory. One was the Queen, where there was a huge amount of pomp and ceremony. And the other was Shinzo Abe, who was assassinated. In all the other cases, they were just blurbed for having been important figures in their day at the "top of their field". Andrew🐉(talk) 12:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• My concerns in this area tend to centre around the really dumb comments sometimes seen, such as Americans describing cricket as a minor sport (yes, it has happened), and the problem with American sports stars playing sports that are only played in the USA. (Sometimes plus Canada.) Misplaced Pages and its editing community are global. 95% of the world's population is not American, and they tend to know nothing about American football. It's incredibly hard to make rules that will get a blurb for an American such as Bill Russell, even if he is the world's greatest athlete. How can a non-American objectively judge such a thing? Should they be banned from commenting? HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Equally, how could an American objectively judge it? Nobody is expected to be objective, it's which subjective arguments that are more convincing. Kingsif (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

How about dumb comments like assuming because one hasn't heard of it in their country, that therefore they must not be famous or notable. I think we should strike those types of comments too. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The absence of dumb comments doesn't guarantee smart thoughts being behind !votes. —Bagumba (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is also a good point. How many times have we seen "Oppose - Not notable" and "Support - Notable" be given equal weight in a discussion, regardless of the rationale behind them? Perhaps less is actually more. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, there's crap !votes. Has there been a case where "properly" discounted !votes would have changed the outcome? —Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I do apologize for opening that can of worms. I come back after a few days and it appears suddenly I had started some massive and useless debate. Your point stands though, but I don't think it's a big issue given the fact that blurb decisions are not explicitly democratic. I think the Admins do a good job of keeping on top of this. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• We respect you Andrew, but for anything about ITN that gets questioned, you always refer to viewership stats. As was noted a few times when Vera Lynn didn't get a blurb, that isn't a solid metric. Indeed, nothing really is a metric. RD was introduced when there was too much fighting over what death news stories should get blurbed, and that issue obviously shows up every time we consider a blurb. We debate for a reason - no set of numbers or any kind of 'do they fit in this box' has made deciding which deaths get blurbed easier any time they've been proposed - and that seems to be the best we have. I'm not even sure if your proposal is stats-related or you just wanted to add the table - are you trying to suggest that the selection of blurbs is so unrepresentative of the viewership that your new idea is better? Even though you know stats (or anything) don't relate to blurbworthiness. So, er no change. Kingsif (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Of course there is WP:BIAS. But blurbs are posted based off of consensus. While one might get a few regular ITN contributors to change their perspective, it might be more effective to encourage new participants and possibly broaden the diversity of participants.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• I like this table. I think this is a useful angle to view this information from. Of course the viewership stats are only a shorthand for one of the aspects that matter to us when blurbing a death (it does not relate to the quality of the article, for example). It feels like a fine way to order this list, tho. Either way, my main conclusion from this list is that we have a fairly good variety of blurbed deaths, and we're definitely not blurbing too many in a year, currently. I can definitely tell from the discussion that there's still a lot of disagreement on what deaths and whether deaths alone merit a blurb. Regardless, we can be proud of ourselves for directing our readership to so many high-quality articles about various high-impact individuals :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• The easiest thing to do, honestly, would be to get rid of death blurbs except for those where the death (suicide, dying at a young age, etc.) is the main story. I know someone has suggested it before, and I scorned it at the time but only because that doesn't reflect our current policy. But making that change would avoid making ITN, which is already a popularity contest at heart, even more of a popularity contest. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be proposing to strike the "Major figures" criteria from WP:ITNRD. What about the "Death as the main story" part, specifically where it allows for deaths with major stories about memorial services or international reactions? —Bagumba (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  The difficulty I find with that is it may often take time for memorial services to take place - I can remember one instance in which a person denied a blurb had a "Death of..." article created about them, but it was too late from ITN's point of view since the item had already rolled past the 7-day cycle. As far as international reactions, that seems like a subjective category too. I could see a situation where someone says "Support blurb, the Sydney Morning Herald and BBC reported on their death, and those are international reactions", and I don't think that's the intent of that phrase. I'd like something a bit more specific about what would meet the criterion for widespread international reactions so that we don't continue to have arguments. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the Sydney Morning Herald posting an Associated Press news wire story is probably not the "international reaction" we were expecting. —Bagumba (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  As a further nuisance, I remember that both Chris Cornell and Chester Bennington died at a young age of suicide, but although the death was the main story, the issue became confused due to many people arguing they did not merit blurbs because they weren't famous/transformative enough. That crowd ended up winning out, and they just ended up as RDs. So that's another instance where the "major figures" criteria has caused problems. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I do think such a change would be a shame, as this is an excellent type of article to feature. I look at this table and see a lovely list of a diversity of topics we brought to the forefront. If we had a more detailed recent-deaths section as suggested above too, I suppose that would be alright. I'd almost suggest the alternative of blurbing every recent death that has a GA+ article! But I recognize my feelings on this don't really match other editors here at all.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be in favor of blurbing GAs/FAs too. In truth, I think we should be doing that anyway, and originally that was intended by WP:ITNCRIT, but enough people felt differently about that to where ITN's guidelines actually had to be modified to reflect current practice. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Some GAs only undergo a cursory review, or were reviewed years ago before its quality fell. Perhaps less so with FAs, though WP:FAR does exist for a reason too. —Bagumba (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's true, but I wouldn't automatically question the status of a GAFA when it comes up for nomination in one of our different mechanisms, unless the content of the article clearly shows some red flags. It's a bit like nominating an article for deletion just because it's a recent deaths candidate. While technically doable and would certainly stop the RD process, it's only something you do when it's absolutely necessary. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's just due diligence on FA/GAs, and not blindly signing off. —Bagumba (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• For what it's worth also, I think the fact that the Americans have an outsize number of RDs but only one death blurb compared to other nations shows that the system is working.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• My stance:

• We do not nor should not use popularity or fame as a serious consideration for posting blurbs. For this reason alone, I can expect some RDs to have more views after their posting than some blurbs.
• Besides the normal quality we'd expect at minimum for a RD, a blurb contender should be above and beyond that. Not expecting FA or GA quality, but far better than, say, C-class.
• The article should contain a clear section like "Legacy" or "Impact" that describes why the person is being highlighted for a blurb. Not just a list of awards, but actual prose or the like that helps to make it a no-brainer for posting. Having this requirement is a better defined version of things like "major leader" or "transformative figure" as this is the put-up-or-shut-up for those that want a blurb posted. If you can't have a strong Legacy/Impact section, then maybe a blurb is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 13:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Also, in that table, if you're making the case about views, you may want to normalize that to views per month or day. Eg the Pope's ratio is going to be far higher than most others, while someone that died early in the year will have a long-tail. It may be better representative. --Masem (t) 13:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  There's usually a big spike when someone dies and that's usually quite tight. See the all-time views for Bob Saget, for example.

  There are some celebrities who regularly spike and/or have high background traffic and the Queen is a good example. But even in her case, the death spike was quite pronounced and outstanding, as compared with the background traffic. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I've started compiling some statistics regarding death blurbs in 2022. Between January and April there were 24 nominations were one or more editors suggested or supported a blurb. 20 were males, only 4 were for females. 8 were American (plus 1 Bahamian-American), 2 were Kenyan and the rest were unique. Five blurbs were posted - one each of Australian, Bahamian-American, Iraqi, Japanese (the only female) and Vietnamese. I'll post a full set of statistics and more detail when I've completed the year (probably tomorrow or Thursday). I am intentionally not considering page views. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Update

I've added a couple of columns to the table. They record the current class/grade of the article (which might have been improved as a result of the death) and the level of the subject if they are rated as vital. There don't seem to be any big surprises and the typical scores seem to be grade C and level 5. Note that there are just two FA: Elizabeth II and Bill Russell. One was blurbed and the other wasn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think another major factor here that hasn't been mentioned much is whether a person is well known beyond the borders of one country (maybe two countries in the case of ice hockey players). Bill Russell was effectively unknown outside his own country. As an Australian, I think a handful of Australian deaths last year were of people as equally successful in their fields as Russell, but only within Australia. Can such a person ever get a blurb? HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That is demonstrably false. nableezy - 23:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I asked a question. How can a question be false? HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You also said Bill Russell was effectively unknown outside his own country. That is demonstrably false. nableezy - 00:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please demonstrate it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The 600k results for his name in Chinese should demonstrate that. Or the fact that his passing was covered in pretty much every national news source out there. Including Australia. nableezy - 01:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I said "effectively". 600,000, compared with the Chinese population, is negligible. The Australian news articles tells us how excited Americans were at the time. No mention at all of any Australian response. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As opposed to say 6,450 results for one Shane Warne. nableezy - 05:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Google results are tailored by Google for YOU, based on what Goggle thinks YOU are interested in. They are of no use whatsoever for discussions like this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

lol, yes google is aware of my deep and abiding love and understanding of the Chinese language, so much so that they show me 100x the results for somebody you think is "effectively unknown outside of his own country" compared to that monumentally influential person that was mourned across the world. That right there, thats the dumbest thing youve said this week. nableezy - 07:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What's the relevance of Google results? There's no specific or general metric of significance that would be measured by number of Google results. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Its relevant if somebody is claiming that somebody like Bill Russell is basically unknown outside of the US. Now HiLo48 may be ignorant about who he was, but many people outside of the US were not quite that ignorant. nableezy - 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You are lying about what I wrote. You can't have much of a case if you feel you need to do that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Im lying by replacing "effectively" with "basically". You know what a synonym is? You said effectively unknown outside of America. And that isnt even the dumbest thing youve written this week! nableezy - 07:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

...I think a handful of Australian deaths last year were of people as equally successful in their fields as Russell, but only within Australia. Can such a person ever get a blurb?: WP:ITNC says:

Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

WTF? That was NOT what I was doing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You asked if such a person can get a blurb. I merely wrote what ITNC says. —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

ITNC says lots of things, most of it, INCLUDING THAT, irrelevant to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, to reiterate what HiLo was saying here, I would refer you to the hidden discussion above that's more or less Warne versus Russell. In this case you could argue that Warne is more known outside of his country (as in a higher percentage of those who know of him are not Australian versus Australian) than Russell. This sort of thing clearly impacts a discussion regarding his notability. An Australian person is more likely to know who Warne is, just like an American is more likely to know who Russell is. That impacts how a person is voted on. It's hard to imagine someone gettinga death blurb if they are, for the most part, known only domestically. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not a scientific metric, but Russell has a Misplaced Pages article in 55 languages, while Warne has in 38. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm certainly not attempting to discount your findings, but I question whether it really means that Bill Russell is popular in Armenia or Turkey, or if cross-Wiki presence could be explained by the USA having emigrants/citizens who are fluent in more languages as compared to Australia. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not an estimate based from the scientific method, but the chances of that happening are between 0% and 100%. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see a level 4 "Vital article" (Sidney Poitier) listed here without a blurb. Of course the "Vital article" project is of pretty marginal meaning and certainly controversial (please don't argue about it here), but I'm interested in learning more how his RD discussion played out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson @Maplestrip: Poitier did, in fact, eventually get a blurb. The discussion was here (archives are searchable from Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates#Archives).—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can see the nomination in the history. Checking, I find that Poitier did actually get a blurb. I was misled because he was initially posted as an RD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, good that we caught the error. That does count as one (half) extra US representation, and I think this is another lovely example of an article we brought to the forefront on a person who a lot of people might've missed otherwise. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've updated the table above to add the blurb candidates identified by Thrydulf. Most of those add to the long tail but there was one more blurb – the Man of the Hole!

Gilbert Gottfried was the biggest celebrity addition. What's also worth noting is that the scientists and mathematicians tended not to do well -- David Cox, Frank Drake, James Lovelock and Luc Montagnier.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Trending Topics

I wanted to spin my comment from the above thread into a new thread by itself.

Background: We often get comments tying stories and nominations to their potential popularity particularly as measured by page views. However, we all broadly agree that we should not be conflating WP:ITN significance with WP:PAGEVIEWS. Also, we agree that WP:ITN is not a news ticker (as noted by Masem below).

Suggestion: I think this might be time to introduce a trending topics section either as a part of the WP:ITN box or outside of that. It does reflect quite poor if our mainpage after all these years is still fairly static in its content refresh capability and is not dynamic i.e. tailored either based on audience interest (trending topics), geographic interest (trending near you), or personalized reccos (tailored for you). Trending topics reflects the lowest level of personalization but is still dynamic, whereas tailored for you is the highest level of personalization, while trending near you is in between. This can either be text-based links or better still, images. Requires some amount of creative thinking and might not be in the remit of this group which is largely in a maintenance and operations mode.

Complexity: This is not an easy problem to solve since it requires a technical solution, which might or might not exist within the Misplaced Pages realm. Furthermore, there will have to be new sets of processes including of reviews and such that might need to be baked in.

Next Steps: Would love to get this group's input on the interest for such an idea. More importantly who would be the right group to take this idea forward, if at all. This might or might not fall under this project's remit. Thoughts?

Looking forward to a constructive discussion. Ktin (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The iOS app for Misplaced Pages already does something like this. Its equivalent of the main page shows main page sections like TFA, POTD and OTD. It also has some additional sections and one of them is "Top read" which shows the 5 top read articles from the previous day plus a link to a longer list of the trending articles. Right now, it looks like the screenshot shown (right).

The top item is Damar Hamlin. This was nominated at ITN but the discussion has been closed to suppress it. So, while ITN hasn't changed its blurbs for four straight days, it still shows little interest in tracking what's actually in the news. Our readership doesn't care because they've gone directly to the article which interests them. And what's good in this case is that they're also finding Commotio cordis which is a relevant medical condition. So, Misplaced Pages is working well but ITN not so much.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

To repeat ad infinitum, ITN is not a news ticker, that's was the portal for current events covers. And readers are easily capable of finding topic that we don't yet cover by the search bar. The main page's purpose is to highlight quality article, not guide readers to articles they want to see. Masem (t) 22:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that all main page content must meet quality goals, which absolutely cannot be met with auto selection of topics. A separate page would be reasonable, and we goal link that from the ITN box (since we link the current events portal), but direct inclusion on the main page would be a problem. Masem (t) 00:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• No, this is quite mistaken. Automated features are quite acceptable on the home/main page as the screen shots from the official iOS app demonstrate. As well as the Top read articles, this automatically displays a Random article too – see example (right). What it doesn't do is display ITN very often because that is updated so infrequently. Currently, it hasn't shown ITN since Sunday, four days ago, when the Croatia/Euro blurb was added. The priority is to keep the content fresh, varied and interesting. Every main page section manages to do this except ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Leaving the decision on what gets posted to the highly visible Main Page up to a machine or algorithm is unwise for a variety of reasons, many of them relating to WP:BEANS. It's been said a few times that WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean that we can post shocking content without proper consideration. Having vetted processes avoids this, but a process that posts items just based on read count is unvetted by design. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I hear you. This is the part that requires some thinking. However, at the heart of it -- do you know why the iOS app en.Wiki home screen is any different from the en.Wiki homepage? i.e. Seems like the iOS app is under WMF purview whereas the www page is under this project / volunteer editors purview? Did I get that right? Also tagging @Whatamidoing (WMF) for their thoughts on this topic if they know. PS:To be clear I am not advocating putting sub-par content on the mainpage / homepage but am trying to see why the iOS app mainpage / homescreen is different.Ktin (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't used either of the apps before. Let me see if I can find someone... Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  en.wiki has no control of what WMF is putting on the app, but we still have our priorities. Masem (t) 13:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  For better or for worse, the mobile version and app version are not intended to be the same (mw:Wikimedia Apps#What is the difference between the apps and the mobile web version of Misplaced Pages?).—Bagumba (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  ...this automatically displays a Random article too..." The desktop version already has a "Random article" link. —Bagumba (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the MP could display some select "top reads" that have been vetted and are not already otherwise on ITN. This would be another incentive to improve WP pages. Could the items be added in a timely fashion? Perhaps a bot could help remove stale items no longer trending.—Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

On the general subject of dynamic content for the Main Page: I'm sure something could be done, and I don't want to discourage this discussion or generating ideas. This is an important thing to talk about. But I do want to say, very early in the process, that dynamic content on the Main Page is the kind of thing in which WP:PERFORMANCE could be an issue. I'm sure we can do something like this (if you want to), but the exact method of implementing the ideas might require more thought than if it were a regular article, or it might require some adjustment to the backend.

Once you've all settled on some ideas, I'd be happy to help you find someone in Technology/Ops to talk about the technical details. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be greatly appreciated @Whatamidoing (WMF)! Thanks a ton. Want to use this as a brainstorming bench. Ktin (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't get the concept of a trending topics section. Why point people towards article they are already looking for anyway? The search bar works fine for that, IMO. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It can be a way to find out what is happening in the world (I sometimes see interesting things I didn't know about in Twitter's trending topics) but it's not a reliable way and WP:TOP25's analysis is delayed but much more informative - especially as celebrity gossip or appearance on Netflix's latest big offering will often lead to viewership spikes but no significant change to content. It's certainly completely different to everything currently on the main page, ITN included. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but - and I am likely stating the obvious here, I realize - if it's something we intend on putting on the Main Page, it'd have to be done through WP:CENT. And right now, there seems to be ongoing naked hostility towards doing anything that involves changing an iota of the Main Page. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's hostility, I just think the bar is being set high. Personally I think it's good that we are having these discussions, I just don't know if the ideas being presented of late are viable. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks folks. If we are able to flesh the idea and add some potential details out here — we can take it to take it to WP:CENT. The one thing I still am unable to reconcile in my mind is the difference between the iOS app en.Wiki Main screen and www en.Wiki Main page in terms of expectations. Ktin (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Death blurbs in 2022

Following on from the discussion above, I've looked at every nomination where a blurb was suggested and come up with the following data. I've only done very trivial analysis on it so far but:

• There were 63 nominations where a blurb was suggested, 15 of those resulted in a blurb, 36 were posted as Recent Deaths and 11 were not posted at all (almost entirely due to sourcing issues).
• Of the 11 not posted, 6 had enough discussion of the blurb to say that it would be posted as RD only if quality improved and 5 had insufficient to judge between RD and blurb.
• Consensus to blurb or not blurb was reached in 36 (57%) of nominations, 27 (43%) did not reach a consensus.
• If the 63 proposals, 15 were for females (of which 2 were blurbed, 11 RD and 2 not posted) and 48 males (14 blurbs, 25 RD, 9 not posted). None were proposed for non-binary people.
• Blurbs were proposed for 35 different nationalities, including 17 Americans (0 blurbs), 5 Brits (1 blurb), 3 Japanese (2 blurbs) and two each of Brazilian (2 blurbs), Soviet and Russian (1 blurb), and Greek, Kenyan, Russian and Ukrainian (all 0 blurbs). Japanese and Brazilian were the only nationality to get more than one blurb.
  • The other nationalities with 1 blurb were Angolan, Australian, Bahamian-American, Chinese, Egyptian, Emirati, French-Swiss, German/Vatican City, Iraqi and Vietnamese.
  • Subjectively, it is far more likely for blurbs that don't stand even a remote chance to be posted to be suggested for Americans than any other nationality.
• In no case was a blurb posted without a proposed blurb being added to the template.

Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Data

Discussion (Death blurbs in 2022)

• There's a lot of ways to interpret the data above. For example, are so many American blurbs rejected because Americans tend to propose too many blurbs? Rarely do countries get more than one blurb, after all. Anti-American bias has also been suggested frequently. I don't think this data is enough to say much about it. While we have a good variation of nationality, the gender disparity is interesting. I don't think we're doing too bad on this (I don't expect many high profile 80-year old non-binary dictators dying, after all), but the percentage of women is definitely low. Could we further track down the cause of this bias, and how deeply is this tied into the news media we base our own rulings on? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  In terms of gender, well there are fewer nominated for RD in the first place (see Misplaced Pages:In the news/2022 ITNRD analysis) and Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 95#Analysis of recent deaths June-October 2022; between June and October just under 20% of RD nominations were for women), and fewer of them have a blurb suggested. The most blurbed profession categories are politics, monarch, religion, Islamic terrorism, entertainment and sport. Most of these are very male dominated in terms of BLP subjects in the first place (only 5 of the 138 RDs for sportspeople nominated between June and October were female), and for a sportsperson to get a blurb they really need to have been consistently and widely regarded as one of the best ever in their sport and have name recognition outside that sport - very few women have that. For politics, being a world leader is all-but necessary but not sufficient - one also has to be truly transformative, an incumbent or assassinated. For example the only three living British politicians I could imagine getting a blurb if they died peacefully tomorrow are Rishi Sunak (only as incumbent), Tony Blair and Boris Johnson - and even the latter two would be far from unanimous and might not get posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds to me like the RD bias might actually be a thing we could do more work improving. Blurbs are largely facing systemic problems, while for RD we could simply have more impassioned editors for specific fields. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  At least Tony Blair and Boris Johnson aren't subject to the same inescapable curse Tony Atlas and Rocky Johnson are. Pro wrestlers can transform the field all they want, but it's not going to make their articles any better or pro wrestling's fundamental importance to the entire world any clearer. On that note, I'm not complaining, but think Scott Hall deserves some nod in this section for racking up 2,257,799 points in 2022. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  In terms of female sportspeople, you do have to consider that many of the world's most popular sports (notably association football and cricket, but you could add in golf and rugby football) have only reletively recently moved out of the realms of amateur sport for women. It is therefore unsurprising that we don't have female versions of Shane Warne or Pele at the moment. I can, however, think of a number of female sports figures (specifically in athletics and tennis) who would probably qualify for a blurb - hopefully we won't have to worry about that for a while yet. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue that the percentage of American RDs should be high, simply because approximately 60% of all English first language speakers on the planet live in the United States, and this is the English-language Misplaced Pages. (You could use the statistic 25% of all English-speakers if you'd rather, but I don't think that significantly changes the point.)

Regarding the lack of women at RD, I'd suggest that stems from the sexism present in the past that barred women from high-profile positions that would merit a standalone Misplaced Pages article. The average human lifespan is approximately 80 years. 80 years ago was 1943. A woman born in 1943 was unlikely to enter the workforce due to cultural pressure. Even today, in the United States, men have a workforce participation rate 12% higher than women. I still think it's a good idea for us to counteract sexism by looking for ways to improve the number of women at RD, but I think we should also understand that women did not do as many noteworthy things in the past as men did because of sexism. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to argue that institutionalized sexism still plays a role in the death blurbs as well as the RDs. For example, one person argued that Barbara Walters did not merit a blurb because "meeting a lot of famous people" is nothing special, or she was just a "mere newsreader". Put aside any sort of assessment of Walters's character and reputation and instead just assess the blurb criteria in a vacuum, i.e. whether someone is transformative in their field. The subtext of rationales like these is somewhat gross, even if the individual intentions were not sexist in nature. Of course, neither this nor Vivienne Westwood's nomination was helped by being sandwiched around Pele's death, but my point remains nevertheless. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Add College Football Playoff National Championship to ITNR

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.

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.

College football has been one of the most watched sports in years, the last time we had an ITN related to college football was three years ago. The last two haven't been posted. Although the whole world is used to the NFL. I also saw that college football has more fans in games although NFL has more people watching in on TV. 2600:1700:31BA:9410:DDB7:12BD:2FD0:F626 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a perennial request and fails every time. Gridiron football does not enjoy the same viewership as something like association football, and thus the number of events on ITNR properly reflects this. Masem (t) 04:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In America, college football is second only behind the NFL. American football is gaining popularity around the world, especially Europe and Brazil. Even Brazil has an NFL Instagram page. 2600:1700:31BA:9410:DDB7:12BD:2FD0:F626 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, but that still hasn't yet justified addition of the amateur college bowl series. It would drastically increase the America-centric problems that the ITNR list already has. Masem (t) 04:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding one event a year does not "drastically" worsen systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it has long been decided that if a US college championship makes it to posting, it would be basketball - something that can at least be watched in other countries. Kingsif (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Not "would be", the college basketball championships are already at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Recurring items § Basketball —Bagumba (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Participation is limited to college students only and is therefore a second tier competition. Chrisclear (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Boat Race is already at ITNR, as are college basketball championships. Clearly, college/university is not automatically disqualifying. —Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose domestic sporting events are typically limited to one per country per sport. Thus in English football we have the Premier League but not the FA Cup. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  The U.S. is 6x the population of England, and presumably similar as far as WP readership. Why would that not be a consideration? —Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for the same reasons I opposed the current nomination. It looks unlikely we will even post this year's event, so suggesting ITNR is far too premature. Modest Genius 13:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Generally you want the current nomination to not be at risk of closing with no consensus, if you want the item to become ITN/R...--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Second-level domestic sports finals should not be ITN/R. If that was applied to (association) football or cricket we would have dozens of tournaments listed. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While we do occasionally post the College Football Championship, such postings are rarely without controversy or opposition. ITNR should only be for events for which we would never expect opposition over the significance. --Jayron32 13:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - for real, yall think the PDC World Darts Championship is somehow more worthy of mention on the mainpage than an event that gets some 15-20x the viewership? Or the rowing race between Oxford and Cambridge? lol. nableezy - 16:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Time to raise The Boat Race alarm for TRM! But seriously, both the Boat Race and PDC darts are the top competitions for those sports with otherwise limited player bases compared to assc. football or cricket. It is thus fair to have the singular top event there. For gridiron football, we have a couple that represent the best professional teams, there's no need for another that's sub-level to those. That's why we don't use popularity or viewership to select ITN topic, as otherwise we'd just be repeating the popular headlines. Masem (t) 17:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  The College Football Playoffs is a 2 billion dollar business. I could just as soon say that the Champions League is the only top tier association football championship in Europe and that the national league winners are a sub-level variant. Also, I find the gatekeeping mentality on ITN to stop us from "just repeating headlines" to make little to no sense. What could possibly be the purpose of a "you may have seen these items in the news, click to read more about it" be other than directing people to our articles on popular headlines. nableezy - 17:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's because most people vote based on what is personally interesting to them and don't use metrics such as reliable source coverage to assess whether or not an event is significant. For most voters, "significant" means "is this something I personally find interesting enough to me" and not "is this something people are hearing about outside of Misplaced Pages." Mostly, people use this as their vehicle to enforce their view of how the world should be rather than reporting on what is. --Jayron32 17:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's a slightly harsh way of putting it. I think the motivation (if not necessarily the execution) of people supporting and opposing certain items is an assessment of encyclopedic value. I mean Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, right? We make no claim to be a newspaper or other purveyor of the latest headlines. And many people that the annual college football championship isn't at a level of encyclopedic interest that would merit inclusion in the rather limited set of ITN blurbs we post. Now personally I do think there's a lot to be said for giving readers easy links to the topics making the headlines. They tend to find them anyway without even using the main page, if the TOP25 report is to be believed, but it would still be valuable to showcase our quality work on such items. If I were God of the wiki, I'd probably add another section alongside Ongoing and Recent deaths, where we just provide simple rolling links to big headline stories that didn't make it for a blurb, e.g. the speaker election or the college playoff final. Not sure if that idea would pass muster with the honchos though.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This close is garbage. I had to delete several variations of that sentence before settling on that one. nableezy - 18:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we feature books at ITN?

I watch the main evening news every day and for the last week, they've dedicated a few minutes every night to the upcoming release of Prince Harry's memoir Spare. Well, it's been released and in the UK The Guardian has just reported that it is the "UK's fastest-selling nonfiction book" (based on first day sales). The sales figures for the first day in the US are about to come out and a reporter for Forbes thinks that it's got a chance of outselling Obama's A Promised Land. Hence my question - do we feature books at ITN? I've had a look at the article and it's in decent order, but the sales record ought to be added because if anything, that's what demonstrates why this might be ITN-worthy. Schwede66 09:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good, so I would appreciate seeing this subject nominated! I don't expect it will make it through, as we rarely ever feature new releases of media/art here. There might be a concern of promoting it. There's also a gossippy aspect to the content of the book that editors here might not appreciate (as it details his personal experience of his weird upperclass life). But the significance is certainly there, so who knows! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

About the only three topics I can think of that ITN never features are celebrity gossip, sports retirements and announcements that someone/some group intends to do something in the future. Everything else is worth nominating as long as it's both in the news and not routine. I don't know how Harry's book will fare, beyond being amazed if editors are unanimous about it, but its definitely worth nominating. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Also any cycling of ministerial posts at the state or municipal level, meteorological curiosities, U.S. Supreme Court nominations, actors/newscasters being fired or suspended, and (although a bit dated now) anything that Trump tweets out. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We tend not to focus on sales or viewership records for contemporary pop culture (for example how many box office records Avatar 2 is breaking), so I don't think we'd do the same with books. Masem (t) 17:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove The Boat Race from ITN/R

All of the arguments that are used against including the College Football Championship apply to the Boat Race between Oxford and Cambridge. It is an amateur event, it is a student sporting competition, a minority sport, only open to an even narrower range of athletes, it is not particularly important, college sporting events are not terribly significant, it is of no significance. Beyond that, the coverage the Boat Race pales in comparison to coverage of the CFP worldwide. For example, the NYTimes hasnt even mentioned it in the last several years, neither has ABC Australia, or CBC Canada. There is no grounds for inclusion when events that much more widely covered, much more open in their participation (the schools that participate in the boat race have some 46k students enrolled, the teams in just the playoffs, not to mention all the other D1 schools that are qualified for it have an enrollment of around 120k), and much bigger revenue (from a quick google search, the Boat Race has revenue around 16 million USD, just in TV rights alone the CFP pulls in 470 million and rising). Since the arguments used to suppress mention of what is inarguably a larger in all aspects story apply equally to this niche sport among two and only two universities in one country, the Boat Race should be removed from ITN/R. nableezy - 14:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Remove - as proposer. nableezy - 14:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• No opinion yet, but I'd like to remind everyone that a subject like the Boat Race or college football can still get an annual blurb, even if they're not on ITN/R, if their article is of sufficient quality. Removal of ITN/R would not (necessarily) mean that we'll never blurb the Boat Race again, just that it won't automatically pass. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Pinging The Rambling Man since he regularly nominates and updates the articles surrounding the Boat Race (all of which have been FA's) so he would likely be interested to know that this discussion is occurring. That said, oppose - this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose one of the most famous and important amateur events in the world. It's very much in the news when it happens. Seems a bit WP:POINTY to me. Lee Vilenski 14:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  How is it famous or important when it lacks the coverage that events that are rejected for lack of importance or fame? And no, not pointy, asking for a consistency besides "Four legs good, two legs bad" or "English good, American bad". If, as is argued at ITN, that college sports are unworthy of ITN, much less being ITN/R, then that should apply uniformly, and not carve out a special exception for a special sport on a special island. nableezy - 14:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is generally always posted every year, I see no reason to remove it from the list. ITNR is merely a list of articles we post every year already, and The Boat Race qualifies. Other arbitrary metrics are not really relevant to such a discussion, merely "do we, based on past performance, expect this to be posted every year as long as the quality is up-to-snuff". Based on past performance, The Boat Race has never failed to make the main page, as long as quality is fine. --Jayron32 14:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a way to test this argument? How do we know if an ITN/R item should no longer be ITN/R? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion, ITN/R items should be nominated for removal if:

  • The item has failed to be nominated for its last two or three occurrences, indicating a lack of interest in maintaining the item on ITN (barring some truly exceptional circumstances), or
  • Even more rarely, there is an overwhelming consensus not to post the item on ITN/C once nominated, specifically because its exclusion from ITN would best serve Misplaced Pages's interests.

  That's what I tend to see as historically being the key motivators for removal, and I think it keeps the process sufficiently removed from WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT voting. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Here is how to get an item removed from WP:ITNR: 1) Nominate it for removal from the list 2) See if there is consensus that it doesn't belong on the list. I kinda thought that was exactly what we are doing here, but maybe I'm confused and not you... --Jayron32 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think Maplestrip is saying that your argument that "items on ITNR should be kept if they're posted at ITNC" is circular because items at ITNC are posted because they're on ITNR. Iff this is correct then the only way items could be removed from ITNR is if they are not nominated or if the quality is regularly not good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly that. You say it as though you were not expecting it to be true? I mean, we still do need to have the discussion, and see where consensus lies. My rationale for keeping it on the list is "It gets posted easily every year". Perhaps other people have different rationales. If we didn't expect them to, then there would be no need for a discussion, n'est ce pas? I certainly am not so presumptuous to think that my way is the only way a person could think about the issue. If anyone believe that, why would we even have discussions; if there was only one possible perspective, and nothing else were ever possible, there would never be a need to discuss everything, it would all be pre-decided. My belief is that we should not remove this item because we have no evidence that it doesn't get posted all of the time. My belief is not that anyone else cannot be allowed to have different beliefs. --Jayron32 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Remove. An amateur student event which has all the same problems as the US college sports. I have consistently opposed posting the Oxbridge boat race in ITN for over a decade. The race is not the top level of rowing - that is the Olympic Games (though we could maybe consider adding the World Rowing Championships as well). The TV audience isn't particularly large either. It's a relic of the British class system and barely registers with anyone except graduates of those two institutions. Modest Genius 14:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose while it is an amateur level event it is also the top level event for rowing (short of the Olympic rowing events). Add that the article for the race is nearly always well above quality requirements within a few hours after the race. --Masem (t) 15:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Remove This has been controversial for years. There's a demonstrated lack of consensus (in the real world sense of the term, not the insular Misplaced Pages sense.) Zagalejo (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  1) Please point to these real-world discussions that demonstrate a lack of consensus about whether Misplaced Pages should post The Boat Race to ITN. 2) Please explain how and why a consensus anywhere other than this page or WP:ITNC (or at WT:ITNR before it was merged here) is relevant. 3) Please explain why Misplaced Pages's definition of consensus is not relevant to discussions internal to Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages's definition of consensus typically means that the loudest and most persistent voices get their way. Anyway, the Boat Race has been questioned on this talk page repeatedly, with discussions going back to at least 2015. (Check the archive.) Zagalejo (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  And note that the original nomination was quite acrimonious: . Let's not pretend it sailed through with unanimous support. Zagalejo (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm fairly ambivalent here, but ... if we're starting a nomination with "All of the arguments that are used against including the College Football Championship apply to the Boat Race", then one could argue that all of those arguments apply to the NCAA basketball as well. I'm also a little wary that we would have no rowing events at all which are ITN/R. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose last few years has been Covid, right? Odd time to start making comparisons for coverage. One race was cancelled, another held behind closed doors. As far as I can tell, this is a good-faith proposal, but it totally misses the mark as usual. We go through this every couple of years. It's remarkable to me that some individuals don't want to feature ITN sports events with multi-national athletes (often up to World/Olympic standard) whose article is normally up to GA status at least by the time it's nominated. But life is far too short and too precious to get worked up about it. If this goes, so should any other amateur contest such as NCAA. As an aside, reducing ITN/R items just makes the process more stagnant than it already is. Bravo. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press