![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Could we not have waited until the official results were announced? I don't like the precedent being set of announcing exit polls. Borisblue 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently we have
Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured) is elected President of France with 53-55% of the vote, defeating Socialist Ségolène Royal.
which shows only one candidate's party and doesn't link to it. Not very helpful. I suggest either
UMP candidate Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured) is elected President of France with 53-55% of the vote, defeating Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal.
or the shorter
Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured) is elected President of France with 53-55% of the vote, defeating Ségolène Royal.
I like the former, but what do others think? ·· coel acan 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not followed the news since about 8 PM French time, when the first poll results were revealed, but I don't think the French are that fast and counted all the votes already - so Sarkozy might be the winner of the elections with all probability, or at least the polls, but until he is announced president by the appropriate authorities, he was NOT elected yet! PrinceGloria 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Did this edit lose too much information? The rallies are against a particular party, and in preparation for a particular election. That information is now not in ITN. Shouldn't it be? Can it be included without making the piece too long? ·· coel acan 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible for the point about the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 to include the fact that the winning artist was Marija Šerifović? At present it has the winning song ( Molitva), but I do think that it is a bit weird to have the song, and not the artist. It would be nice if we credited the artist. Red v Blue 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
While Eurovision Song Contest 2007 is still on ITN, I thought I should ask here if the conclusion of American Idol (season 6) next week should be on ITN. I ain't suggesting that this be featured on ITN. Just an early discussion. Any thoughts, anyone ? -- PFHLai 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have two arguments for including Idol in ITN, one majoritarian and one antimajoritarian.
You didn't give me and the rest of middle-class America Jerry Falwell; now you want to deny us Idol. For shame. -- zenohockey 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
On why this doesn't really cut it...
a) it's parochial. It's really not of any great interest outside the UK.
b) the linked article is trivially updated; it just has a new scoreline and which guys played. No lengthy current coverage, no continuing development, just a blank part filled in.
The latter is an important factor, even if we ignore the "importance" aspect entirely - it's why we miss out things like routine obituaries as a rule, because the article really doesn't change much beyond adding a death date. In this case, the article isn't likely to be updated with anything more complex than it has now; there isn't going to be any ongoing development of the article, it's stable, it's done. ITN material really ought to be stuff which is still live, still being developed... Shimgray | talk | 01:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again with double standards. I thought that it was a census that only the premier sporting event of a sport would be on the INT? That would be the FIFA World Cup in the case of Football, not FA Cup or UEFA Champions League Final. This means that without being biased or having double standards the INT should have all major sporting events which there is a lot of and would cause the INT to become bloated. This should be in the current events and wikinews but as discussed before and per the census, this shouldn't be in the INT.-- THUG CHILD z 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The census about 2 months ago was that only the premier event of a sport would be in INT. It really isn't that hard to figure out what is the premier event of a sport. And when it's crystal clear that FIFA world cup is the premier event of soccer why is there this double standards? And it's not that hard to figure out that NBA finals and the super bowl is the premier events of basketball and American football. So only the most premier event of a sport not what is the premier event out of knockouts, not the premier event of a region but it was that only the premier event of a sport. So really need to lose the double standards that's going on.-- THUG CHILD z 23:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
How about 2007 Super 14#Final? The "premier sporting event" in rugby? -- 74.13.130.205 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The Super 14 nor Heineken Cup is the premier event for rugby, it's the Rugby World Cup which is. Figuring out what the premier sporting event of a sport isn't that hard and when it crystle clear I see no point of these and the FA cup being up other than bias.-- THUG CHILD z 23:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
But is the club one the premier one over the national one? If so then it should be the other way arround. I don't really know much about rugby league but either way it should be the premier event regardless of it being a club, national or international competition of a sport.-- THUG CHILD z 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the right hand column on the main page is too short - revert the last news item removed as that it seems more balanced. -- TheTall One 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia is not a newspaper but currently there are several candidates that were intresting and up-to-date. If we can accept more candidates, we can prevent ITN from becoming stale and prevent old and forgetten news from being displayed.
We can loosen up the procedures so we can include some national news and more sports scores, even if its not the "premier competition," whatever that is. And we may not worry about some complaints "this shouldn't be there" since many news articles will be posted and will also be removed rather quickly.
Because currently, some news items are so old now (like the FA Cup), and some weren't "promoted" like the two rugby competitions. -- Howard the Duck 03:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I figure that it's worth repeating an experience I had last October. Fed up with the ridiculously long time it took to get an ITN update, I decided to see if I could average two new items a day, which is not a big deal for a sometimes news junkie. See the history. The main response of other users was formatting, but it also seems that people were more comfortable making their own updates. (The more updates there are, the less people obsess over each one.) This lasted until a vandal deleted the updated section in an article and an admin, without checking the article history, removed the ITN item for failing the criteria. A few admins who apparently been quietly seething at what they felt were insufficiently updated articles took the opportunity to express their frustration (and add the "reasonable amount of information" line to the lede on this page). I personally felt that the constant turnover was good for the Main Page and good for the encyclopedia, but some people do love their rules.
On a more constructive side, my opinion is that WP:ITN/C would be entirely superfluous if Portal:Current events allowed entries to be written in ITN format, e.g. with bolded links if there is an updated article and with freely licensed images on the side. That way everyone would have one page to worry about. - Banyan Tree 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support the idea of loosening up the rules in principle. I'm not so sure about letting in too much sport or even national news that holds little international interest but IMHO it might be an idea to allow articles which have been updated sufficiently to show the story is real and of key international interest even if the update is minor. My bigger concern is not Lina Joy or similar which IMHO aren't really that big stories. Rather there have been a number of big and clearly important stories that were never on ITN simply because the article wasn't updated enough. A key example would be the 2007 Jakarta flood. This is a flood which displaced 200k people and killed 54 but I'm pretty sure was never on ITN. The 2006-2007 Malaysian floods were featured on ITN belatedly. But ironically the flooding in Indonesia at around the same time was never mentioned much and still isn't mentioned much. While systematic bias will never disappear, IMHO it would be better to reduce it in ITN by relaxing the article update requirements. Of course I'm not saying this is guranteed to work. Our current system kind of works because most articles aren't updated enough that we have to consider them. We get debate but it's usually not that major except in a few case. The trouble is, if we allow anything of key international interest even if the article hasn't been updated enough, we risk opening up endless debate about what is and isn't of international interest. Is Lina Joy really of international interest? Was the debate in the UK sparked by Straw's comments of international interest ( United Kingdom debate over veils? What about the guidance by the UK MOE in March 2007 (which from memory was proposed for ITN). What about the Omar Khard case? ETA? JFK plot? Kenyan shootout? Laos coup plot? There is obviously a big risk that by relaxing the substanial update requirement we may in fact make systematic bias worse rather then better. The other issue of course is do we risk becoming wikinews by doing this? Nil Einne 16:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, we'd only have to loosen up one rule (as mentioned above), the international interest part. As long as it's reported by major news outlets (excluding wire stories like the Reuters reports you see on the newspaper) and it's encyclopedic; heck we have 2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack for crying out loud. Other ITN candidates were passed up while I thought they were deserving, they're not just that "international." -- Howard the Duck 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we throw in a couple of words in the one-liner? Like:
Unbiased comments welcome. Niko Silver 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it just coincidence that it has the same initials as a national news broadcaster in the UK? Simply south 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems of questionable international importance. The reference to 'Scotland's Dario Franchitti' suggests that it was national teams taking part, when in fact it wasn't. Reword?-- Nydas (Talk) 21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Could we not have waited until the official results were announced? I don't like the precedent being set of announcing exit polls. Borisblue 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently we have
Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured) is elected President of France with 53-55% of the vote, defeating Socialist Ségolène Royal.
which shows only one candidate's party and doesn't link to it. Not very helpful. I suggest either
UMP candidate Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured) is elected President of France with 53-55% of the vote, defeating Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal.
or the shorter
Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured) is elected President of France with 53-55% of the vote, defeating Ségolène Royal.
I like the former, but what do others think? ·· coel acan 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not followed the news since about 8 PM French time, when the first poll results were revealed, but I don't think the French are that fast and counted all the votes already - so Sarkozy might be the winner of the elections with all probability, or at least the polls, but until he is announced president by the appropriate authorities, he was NOT elected yet! PrinceGloria 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Did this edit lose too much information? The rallies are against a particular party, and in preparation for a particular election. That information is now not in ITN. Shouldn't it be? Can it be included without making the piece too long? ·· coel acan 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible for the point about the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 to include the fact that the winning artist was Marija Šerifović? At present it has the winning song ( Molitva), but I do think that it is a bit weird to have the song, and not the artist. It would be nice if we credited the artist. Red v Blue 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
While Eurovision Song Contest 2007 is still on ITN, I thought I should ask here if the conclusion of American Idol (season 6) next week should be on ITN. I ain't suggesting that this be featured on ITN. Just an early discussion. Any thoughts, anyone ? -- PFHLai 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have two arguments for including Idol in ITN, one majoritarian and one antimajoritarian.
You didn't give me and the rest of middle-class America Jerry Falwell; now you want to deny us Idol. For shame. -- zenohockey 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
On why this doesn't really cut it...
a) it's parochial. It's really not of any great interest outside the UK.
b) the linked article is trivially updated; it just has a new scoreline and which guys played. No lengthy current coverage, no continuing development, just a blank part filled in.
The latter is an important factor, even if we ignore the "importance" aspect entirely - it's why we miss out things like routine obituaries as a rule, because the article really doesn't change much beyond adding a death date. In this case, the article isn't likely to be updated with anything more complex than it has now; there isn't going to be any ongoing development of the article, it's stable, it's done. ITN material really ought to be stuff which is still live, still being developed... Shimgray | talk | 01:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again with double standards. I thought that it was a census that only the premier sporting event of a sport would be on the INT? That would be the FIFA World Cup in the case of Football, not FA Cup or UEFA Champions League Final. This means that without being biased or having double standards the INT should have all major sporting events which there is a lot of and would cause the INT to become bloated. This should be in the current events and wikinews but as discussed before and per the census, this shouldn't be in the INT.-- THUG CHILD z 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The census about 2 months ago was that only the premier event of a sport would be in INT. It really isn't that hard to figure out what is the premier event of a sport. And when it's crystal clear that FIFA world cup is the premier event of soccer why is there this double standards? And it's not that hard to figure out that NBA finals and the super bowl is the premier events of basketball and American football. So only the most premier event of a sport not what is the premier event out of knockouts, not the premier event of a region but it was that only the premier event of a sport. So really need to lose the double standards that's going on.-- THUG CHILD z 23:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
How about 2007 Super 14#Final? The "premier sporting event" in rugby? -- 74.13.130.205 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The Super 14 nor Heineken Cup is the premier event for rugby, it's the Rugby World Cup which is. Figuring out what the premier sporting event of a sport isn't that hard and when it crystle clear I see no point of these and the FA cup being up other than bias.-- THUG CHILD z 23:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
But is the club one the premier one over the national one? If so then it should be the other way arround. I don't really know much about rugby league but either way it should be the premier event regardless of it being a club, national or international competition of a sport.-- THUG CHILD z 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the right hand column on the main page is too short - revert the last news item removed as that it seems more balanced. -- TheTall One 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia is not a newspaper but currently there are several candidates that were intresting and up-to-date. If we can accept more candidates, we can prevent ITN from becoming stale and prevent old and forgetten news from being displayed.
We can loosen up the procedures so we can include some national news and more sports scores, even if its not the "premier competition," whatever that is. And we may not worry about some complaints "this shouldn't be there" since many news articles will be posted and will also be removed rather quickly.
Because currently, some news items are so old now (like the FA Cup), and some weren't "promoted" like the two rugby competitions. -- Howard the Duck 03:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I figure that it's worth repeating an experience I had last October. Fed up with the ridiculously long time it took to get an ITN update, I decided to see if I could average two new items a day, which is not a big deal for a sometimes news junkie. See the history. The main response of other users was formatting, but it also seems that people were more comfortable making their own updates. (The more updates there are, the less people obsess over each one.) This lasted until a vandal deleted the updated section in an article and an admin, without checking the article history, removed the ITN item for failing the criteria. A few admins who apparently been quietly seething at what they felt were insufficiently updated articles took the opportunity to express their frustration (and add the "reasonable amount of information" line to the lede on this page). I personally felt that the constant turnover was good for the Main Page and good for the encyclopedia, but some people do love their rules.
On a more constructive side, my opinion is that WP:ITN/C would be entirely superfluous if Portal:Current events allowed entries to be written in ITN format, e.g. with bolded links if there is an updated article and with freely licensed images on the side. That way everyone would have one page to worry about. - Banyan Tree 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support the idea of loosening up the rules in principle. I'm not so sure about letting in too much sport or even national news that holds little international interest but IMHO it might be an idea to allow articles which have been updated sufficiently to show the story is real and of key international interest even if the update is minor. My bigger concern is not Lina Joy or similar which IMHO aren't really that big stories. Rather there have been a number of big and clearly important stories that were never on ITN simply because the article wasn't updated enough. A key example would be the 2007 Jakarta flood. This is a flood which displaced 200k people and killed 54 but I'm pretty sure was never on ITN. The 2006-2007 Malaysian floods were featured on ITN belatedly. But ironically the flooding in Indonesia at around the same time was never mentioned much and still isn't mentioned much. While systematic bias will never disappear, IMHO it would be better to reduce it in ITN by relaxing the article update requirements. Of course I'm not saying this is guranteed to work. Our current system kind of works because most articles aren't updated enough that we have to consider them. We get debate but it's usually not that major except in a few case. The trouble is, if we allow anything of key international interest even if the article hasn't been updated enough, we risk opening up endless debate about what is and isn't of international interest. Is Lina Joy really of international interest? Was the debate in the UK sparked by Straw's comments of international interest ( United Kingdom debate over veils? What about the guidance by the UK MOE in March 2007 (which from memory was proposed for ITN). What about the Omar Khard case? ETA? JFK plot? Kenyan shootout? Laos coup plot? There is obviously a big risk that by relaxing the substanial update requirement we may in fact make systematic bias worse rather then better. The other issue of course is do we risk becoming wikinews by doing this? Nil Einne 16:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, we'd only have to loosen up one rule (as mentioned above), the international interest part. As long as it's reported by major news outlets (excluding wire stories like the Reuters reports you see on the newspaper) and it's encyclopedic; heck we have 2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack for crying out loud. Other ITN candidates were passed up while I thought they were deserving, they're not just that "international." -- Howard the Duck 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we throw in a couple of words in the one-liner? Like:
Unbiased comments welcome. Niko Silver 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it just coincidence that it has the same initials as a national news broadcaster in the UK? Simply south 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems of questionable international importance. The reference to 'Scotland's Dario Franchitti' suggests that it was national teams taking part, when in fact it wasn't. Reword?-- Nydas (Talk) 21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)