![]() | This page 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. |
If we are going to argue about the numbers of deaths adding to the notability of an incident, can we at least quote the correct number in our arguments. For this accident, the death toll was 74, as a look at the article will tell. Mjroots ( talk) 16:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to start. But a very important news:
13 July 2011:
BBC News:
Mumbai: Explosions shake India's financial hub
The Hindu:
At least 13 killed, 81 injured in Mumbai blasts: Chavan
–
∃
Aditya
7 ¦
16:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
why do we keep getting NPA responses to indivudual opinions DESPITE policy? people are supposed to comment on the ISSUE not the respondent whp is perfectly well entitles to hids view whaever it is regardless of what others think as long as there is a reason for consensus building and not "support per X" Lihaas ( talk) 20:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
How is the retirement of a basketball player worthy of inclusion on ITN? He's not even one of the all-time greats. Can someone explain this decision to me? – Pee Jay 12:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
One problem with the current system of using tags ([Posted], [Ready], etc.) is it discourages review of items where consensus might've changed after posting (which goes against the idea that consensus can change. Yao Ming, for example, had almost no consensus to post originally, then got 3 more opposes and only one support after (and please tell give me the consensus doesn't equal vote tally line). Though I opposed it it's too late for me to care if this particular item gets pulled, but I think it's something to think about for the future. Hot Stop talk- contribs 20:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Seldom looked at and even more rarely carried over to ITN/C, what's the justification for keeping this? A large number of the items posted are already listed at ITN/R, but even for those that are not: if the events are so notable, surely someone would nominate them when they occur?
One possible reason for keeping it is to list articles that may need attention (e.g., expanding, updating) before being nominated at ITN/C, but is this pre-emptive process actually working? Nightw 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, before I change the heading formats, is there any reason why we have Wikipedia:In the news/Future events/2011, which is then transcluded on Wikipedia:In the news/Future events? Can't we just use a top level heading for 2011, and another for 2012, without needing to maintain separate transcluded pages? That's only going to make life harder for the bot, and is confusing to edit. Modest Genius talk 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Entries in this list are automatically transferred to the
Candidates page by
AnomieBOT. Please place items under the appropriate date. When making new section headers, please use month day only. Any other format, including date ranges, will be ignored by the bot. |
Well it looks like we're ready to me. Are there any other issues anyone can see? Nightw 06:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The blurb for the Norway attacks still says the death toll is "at least 17", but with it now over 80, the the total should be changed, else it's true but deceptive. - Rrius ( talk) 02:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I added the text "Events are not required to affect multiple countries." to the criteria and I was reverted by Crispmuncher. To me it seems like an obvious clarification. We regularly post events which don't affect multiple countries. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Also I think it'd be good to unprotect the talk page for the news template. So submitting edit requests to it would be more intuitive. Egg Centric 13:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
How about we remove the 2011 Norway attacks article from the ITTN on the main page until the stupidity on that page dies down? It's gonna make Wikipedia look really bad otherwise. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
Hope I'm in the right place to do this... Yesterday, the 2011 Copa América, a globally known major international football (soccer) tournament in South America, ended with Uruguay claiming their 15th title. I know Mexico's win in the North American equivalent was not posted ITN, but the Asian equivalent was and I have no doubt the winner of the European equivalent will be posted ITN. The event did receive significant coverage worldwide. I think it should included in the template. So if it isn't a bother, can someone please add it. Thanks in advance. Digirami ( talk) 19:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The recent (and still second article on the template) posting of the end of the Tour de France occurred with a totally rewritten and undiscussed blurb. Several editors have since pointed out reasons why the proposed and discussed blurbs were preferable to that unilaterally posted, both at ITN/C and on WP:ERRORS. No change has been made, nor has any admin responded* to say why they are unwilling to change the blurb to that about which consensus built. *: except for one very unfortunate exchange, which reflects well on neither of the participants
I would not object in principle to the posting admin making some changes to the blurb, especially if the phrasing has not been widely addressed in the ITN/C discussion, but in doing so, he/she should be aware that that phrasing has not gained consensus, and so it is incumbent on him/her to remain alert to observations on it, and humble enough to change it if generates legitimate criticism. Kevin McE ( talk) 08:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I notice that today's ITN links to plain English words like 'cycling' and 'Australian'. Does ITN have a guideline on linking plain English words? Lightmouse ( talk) 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that guideline says:
Yet we see 'cycling' and 'Australian' linked in ITN on the Main Page. Is that a one-off error or something wrong with review? Lightmouse ( talk) 10:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I did see the discussion WP:ERRORS but I didn't see the thread above. That does provide some context, thanks for pointing it out. I hope it will improve review. Lightmouse ( talk) 10:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone else had a look at this lately? It's not very helpful. The whole Significance sub-section goes like this...
Has something been lost here? It tells me how this criterion "was previously written", but not what it is now. Maybe I'm missing something, but if that's all we have, it's no wonder we have occasional disagreements. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be added back aswell. The wording probably needs to be changed, but a significant part of the criteria just disappeared. We can draft a new wording here and then replace the current section with something we all agree on. Nightw 11:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
In the past week local media all over the world, even many "reliable sources", covered the "phenomenon" of sunrise or sunset doing something "interesting" in the streets of New York. It was pure trivia, but easily accessible to world media because they all have easy access to American sources. It made nice pictures and video for that final news item/gap filler. But still pure trivia. So massive coverage, but we wouldn't include it here, I hope. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The other point to remember is that you strongly support posting elections for small-town sized countries. I initially was against that, but realised that if someone was going to write a suitable update it didn't really matter and was worth posting. Therefore in reasonable exchange you should allow people to post other items that you don't like without calling them trivial. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Why? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 23:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is there still news up for more than a week. That is seriously stale. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 00:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious about why the blurb about the debt ceiling crisis has been replaced with an older blurb. The edit summary says "there should not be two items on the same topic", but as we have decided after extensive discussions in ITN, these two items are not on the same topic, and that they both deserve to be posted on ITN. Why was no attention paid to the decision-making process in ITN? Should we expect admins to remove any item that they personally have qualms about, irrespective of the fact that they have gone through an extensive (and I'd say overly extensive) nomination process? Jim Sukwutput 20:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Let this be a warning: I for one will absolutely not tolerate the use of ITN/C for soapboxing or making political points. While broad discussion of nominated items is allowed and, to an extent, encouraged, that discussion should be confined to the item's suitability for ITN. Inappropriate or off-topic remarks will be collapsed or removed, and those who repeatedly make wildly inappropriate comments will very quickly meet the same fates as Lihaas ( talk · contribs). To all those who would disrupt ITN/C, or use it as a soapbox, you have been warned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
So here's a link to my post at WT:MP/Errors. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought, but shouldn't the link for "preliminary success" on CLL research go to the wikinews article instead of the page for CLL? That page is already a redirect from "chronic lymphocytic leukemia".. CatDuFoe 10:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There look to have been some rather slow updates recently, I think that if content has been on ITN for more than 5 days nominations should effectively become ITNR events and the opinions on the candidates page should be ignored. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's silly season. Enough said. Modest Genius talk 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think most of it is attributable to the lack of nominations. We're getting an average of 2 nominations per day. Compare that to the 5-7 that we often get a few months ago. Jim Sukwutput 03:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
August 2011 Gaza Attack should be linked on the Main Page - this attack was the result of Hamas breaking the truce with Israel. Polozooza ( talk) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This point needs to be reworded:
Quite ambiguous, makes it sound as if Hamas is conducting air strikes. 96.240.143.69 ( talk) 04:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The article name has been changed - please change the current link to 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Would this be considered ITN-worthy if it hadn't been in a big WASPy part of the United States? I know there are no official ITN criteria for natural disasters, but I seem to recall lots of other natural disasters in other parts of the world being rejected before because they weren't "big" enough or not many people died or something like that. I see this one has a decent-sized article written on it (I've never seen so many words taken to describe so little damage!), which I guess helps (per WP:ITN#Criteria: "Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commentors that it is deserving of inclusion."). But to be honest I just don't see this as very world-shaking (pardon the pun) news. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(oudent) David Levy, thanks for the helpful response; I hadn't checked /Candidates (been a while since I participated here, I thought that would have been archived right now and I had forgotten where to look for it). I see that it was controversial but at least it was thought about. To everyone else: perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "WASP", I wasn't meaning to be derogatory but merely to suggest that this was maybe only of interest because it's close to home for a lot of en-wiki editors, whereas a similar earthquake happening somewhere else might not have qualified here.
The rest of the comments above are just snarky asides and I don't have any response for them. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
( ←) Nowhere on Wikipedia is it ever "valid" to accuse someone of ethnocentrism of any type. It goes against WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in every sense. Does personal bias such as ethnocentrism exist? Of course it does! Is the way to deal with it to start flinging accusations left and right and create a flame war? Never. There are designated ways to handle suspected conflicts of interest (which depends on the level of disruption) detailed at WP:COI. However, nowhere else on Wikipedia is it acceptable to use bad faith assumptions and personal attacks in a dispute. It's no different here. This is not a DR forum. All of this should go without saying, as it only summarizes our normal practices, but the recent string of blatantly inappropriate behavior has led me to assume that it needs to be spelled out. If you suspect personal bias, handle it in an appropriate forum like every one else on Wikipedia. Personal attacks are never acceptable and are always conterproductive. Swarm u | t 17:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I am going to say something that will almost guarantee you can achieve what you want. If there was a calm rational statement above, I could respond, but there's not. You're are behaving like a bunch of rabid dogs. I do not post in the same, conformist way as others (of whom we are frequently reminded almost a majority are Americans). I do come from a different culture, one where it has historically been said that we call a spade a spade. I'm not good at being politically correct. I am good at pointing out the truth where it's not always attractive. Call that unrepentant if you like. You must realise that you are unlikely to change someone who is different by culture. On the issue of anything-centrism, it does happen in Wikipedia. It's not good for Wikipedia. But you don't want to stop it. You want to silence the person who points it out. I genuinely don't get it. Is it politically incorrect? Silence me for not understanding, if you like, but it won't make me change my views. Wouldn't it be more civilised to discuss the hard stuff? HiLo48 ( talk) 08:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a legitimate point to be made about US bias—Americans make up about half of our editorship, and if we all write about topics that interest us, it's logical that we'll have a greater proliferation of articles on American subjects than, say, British or Australian topics. But accusing people of bias at every opportunity is using Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is exactly what I blocked Lihaas for a few weeks ago. On a related note, ITN does a pretty good job of geographical diversity and, on Wikipedia in general, if you want to point the finger at a nation whose coverage is disproportionate to its size (bear in mind that the US is the third largest country by population), then it would be best pointed at the UK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
American bias (and Anglophone bias in general) is a real problem in Wikipedia. But criticising it too often can easily become disruptive. Instead of such a radical measure like an indefinite topic ban, can we not get a promise from HiLo48 not to talk about American bias for a few months? Nanobear ( talk) 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Just want to chip in my 2 cents here: I think it's silly not to mention the US in the blurb when that's the main reason that people will be looking for information on the topic. At the very least, we can say that hurricane warnings have been posted from Massachusetts to North Carolina and/or that hurricane evacuation orders have been issued for NYC for the first time. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
So Mark Hurd bails on HP because of "expense-account irregularities", after which HP bails on the consumer market. In the news? Nope. Steve Jobs quits and it's #1 with a picture. Why does Jobs' relatively mundane departure get on ITN but Hurd not even get honourable mention. -- 108.132.92.8 ( talk) 00:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"*Support iconic business decision. Gates' standing down should clearly have been posted. Given Apple is more profitable and more valuable than Microsoft Jobs is definitely a peer of Gates. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, sorry not Gates. A comment from Reuters compared Steve Jobs not to Bill Gates but to Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Walt Disney, Michael Jordan, and Jesus. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Who cares what Reuters says? Gates was the pioneer of modern computing. It's almost solely because of his work (and with the initial boost of IBM, of course) that computers, and technology as a whole, became so accessible to the public, during a time when technological advancements were not embraced as much as they are today. Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM were pioneers; Apple built upon this to create their success. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)"
Ericleb01, you're welcome to your opinion but you call Gates "the pioneer" when he didn't have any hardware product. (Wozniak's Apple II came out three years before the IBM PC for example.) I don't think it's fair to say that "computers, and technology as a whole, became so accessible to the public" because of Gates. Also, IBM only wanted good licensing terms; they didn't specifically need Gates's BASIC interpreter and operating system. Thank you for your interest. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is this still on the main page? It has been on there for 4 days. I don't think it is "In the news." Very regional event. Starting to get stale. And why is that event still on while newer events, like 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks were removed a few days after they were posted? Who is responsible for managing this? Wikifan Be nice 22:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I see no page about "errors" regarding the article in the link you posted. I cannot find the article. I don't see any mention of "errors" here either than a small minority of editors complaining about the blurb. Nobody is proliferating conspiracy theories. So? Wikifan Be nice 21:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
He still remains so until the next election so shouldn't it be worded as 'announces his resignation' rather than 'resigns'? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 14:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This is, or has become, an issue of user conduct. Please take it to AE, ANI, or back to WQA. Questions concerning the applicability of general sanctions, whether under ARBPIA or other measures, should be directed to WT:AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As per the discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Jim_Sukwutput, I feel there are no personal attack issues, but there could be an emergence of WP:BATTLEGROUND issues that could affect the functioning of the very important WP:ITN area (including all the ITN subpages and talk pages) - which affects the Main Page. I promised to raise an RfC in the WQA thread, and here it is. I am also supporting this position. To be clear, this RfC is not about specific user behavior, rather about a implementing an ArbCom decision that recognizes that there are particular general issues with the ARBPIA topic area that require extra-care on the part of involved editors. Any issues with particular users - if any - should be addressed via the usual DR channels. Cerejota ( talk) 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I disagree with closing. The idea of the RfC is to empower any uninvolved admin to notify of sanctions as per WP:ARBPIA and to enforce the sanctions. For example, Wikifan is subjected to the sanctions, but since it is not clear this is a topic area if the thread is about ARBPIA stuff, no action can be taken. That Wikifan is not sticking to the topic at hand (and should as such delete all the stuff about Jim) is no reason not to have this RfC closed. It is in WT:ITN because this is about ITN. D'oh! This is legit request, that should be processed as such, not to be dismissed simply because a poster disagrees with it.-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
|
RfC reopened at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles#RfC:_Should_WP:ITN_area_discussions_on_items_in_the_WP:ARBPIA_topic_area_be_subjected_to_WP:ARBPIA_itself.3F-- Cerejota ( talk) 21:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems like we have a consensus to post this.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not encyclopedic, is it? a plane is a woodworking tool. The correct encyclopedic term is aircraft (i.e. a craft that travels through the air). We shouldn't be using colliquialisms on the Main Page. Mjroots ( talk) 08:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Why no mention of the start of the World Cup on the In The News Section? It is one of the biggest International Sporting Events this year, and surely deserves a place? Kiwibeca ( talk) 05:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Ecological Debt Day is
September 27, 2011.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, if the so-called "worldwide opposition" is mentioned, the blurb should identify him as "convicted cop-killer", so as not to be biased to one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.168.194 ( talk) 23:22, September 22, 2011
If there's one thing I've noticed about WP:ITN that makes it different from the rest of Wikipedia, it's that it seems to be largely detached or tangential to the fundamental policies that guide the creation and maintenance of Wikipedia articles. So as a result, while scrolling through some of the potential candidates, I am seeing the same arguments for/against posting an ITN candidate being stated, each with varying amounts of success:
Reading through the arguments myself, I see a trend of subjectivity; namely judgment calls as to whether or not an article is worth posting. I'm not sure if this is what is intended with the WP:ITN/C process? Furthermore, I can't really find any definitive criteria for whether something is worth posting, simply that it's in the news, that there's an article about it, and said article is sufficiently updated (note that many candidates that meet these criteria are still excluded). I think we'd solve a lot of problems and issues if we firmly laid down what is necessary for something to be posted, rather than rely entirely on subjective analysis, which is going to result in certain articles being (or not being) featured based on who happens to show up to discuss a candidacy. As it currently stands, I have the feeling that many administrators who make the final call as to whether something should be posted simply count the "Support/Oppose" ratio, as that's really all they can do given the monumental amount of discretion afforded to them.-- WaltCip ( talk) 20:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the it:wp event was added and then removed without a link to discussion, and I can't find a discussion here. Why was it removed? I have no opinion about whether removal is good or bad; it's simply the complete lack of discussion or the obscurity of the discussion that I find problematic. Nyttend ( talk) 04:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a silly rule. What about abolishing it?-- Kozuch ( talk) 21:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
There has been discussion recently at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about the possibility of going from 6 hooks to seven in each set of DYKs. (The number of hooks in each set and the frequency of updates had been reduced due to a shortage of candidate hooks. The hook supply has increased somewhat no, so it should be possible to sustain larger hook sets again.) I believe this would allow ITN to feature at least one additional item. Would this change be acceptable to ITN? Would it be welcomed?? -- Orlady ( talk) 17:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In "updated content"
The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient. |
---|
to
The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient. |
---|
and in "Deaths", remove the text
In addition, the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria) and the article as a whole must be B-class and/or be satisfactorily filled out with no major omissions of the person's life and effect. |
---|
Reasons': I think it is a significant issue that, quite frequently, ITN suffers from confusion as to how an article should be updated. The consensus process is there to protect against rank stupidity, but there are certain types of event that don't always carry with them a lot of opportunity for updating, even though they are ITN-worthy. Awards are one example, but deaths can be another. Creating a whole section to cover a person's death may sometimes be an excellent idea. But sometimes it might also result in the inclusion of a pointless short list of reactions from colleagues, just to fulfil the updating criteria. Another good example is the recent decision of Saudi Arabia to grant women the vote. Obviously appropriate for ITN, but SA is quite a closed society, so all there really was to update was the fact that it happened and a reaction from Amnesty International. Additionally, WP had no information about the history of voting and women's participation in Saudi Arabia, so a substantial amount of content was created. This isn't really considered an "update", but probably should be in those types of circumstance.
Ta. -- FormerIP ( talk) 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I note Template:In the news currently has cascading protection set. I'm not sure what was intended by doing so, but it is probably not doing what you actually intend and is therefore worse than useless. The important parts of the template are already covered by virtue of being transcluded onto the Main page; the only thing covered by the cascading protection on this template that is not covered by Main page is this template's documentation, which is contrary to the intent of a template documentation subpage. See also further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#/doc subpages of cascade-protected templates.
Unless anyone has a good reason why this template should itself have cascading protection instead of relying on cascading from Main page to cover the important bits, I will remove the cascading from this template soonish. Anomie ⚔ 14:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed that we haven't had archives of ITN stories since June... If anyone has some free time, writing that would be appreciated. -- Tone 14:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been following the In-the-news box eagerly for years, and I think it's excellent. However, one flaw I've noticed is its tendency to include events of relatively low interest but that are somewhat similar in nature to another recent major event. I don't want to give individual examples of what have been such relatively low interest events, but a typical example of a recent major event could have been "An earthquake kills 1000 people", followed a couple of days later by the relatively low interest event of "An earthquake in (another country) leaves 2 people injured". Perhaps the underlying mechanism for this tendency is that the previous major event leaves editors to believe that earthquakes are interesting, and indeed they are sometimes, but in fact there are also earthquakes that are relatively less interesting when comparing to everything else that happens in the world, which motivates to be extra careful when dealing with similar events in the near future after any major event. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 15:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that they appear on the main page, aren't images in ITN supposed to be fully protected, same as with DYK and TFA? I ask this because the 787 image isn't (and, for that matter, the picture of General Khan isn't either...) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:ANI#Extensive copyright violations by User:Night w, it appears that there is a very significant chance that significant portions of much of Palestine 194 are copyright violations. I'm not comfortable editing the template by myself, having no familiarity with any Main Page process; hopefully an ITN member sees this ASAP. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the item "The elements darmstadtium, roentgenium and copernicium are named ..." very old news? / 95.209.209.35 ( talk) 10:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
We seem to be getting more and more posts of late that incorrectly assert ITNR or minority topic status. With ITNR it is usually pretty clear-cut but minority topics are somewhat more open to interpretation. I propose the docs (and comments) for the ITN Candidate template are adjusted to require an explanation of which minority topic criterion is being asserted for a given entry. Does anyone have any objections or other comments? Crispmuncher ( talk) 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC).
Can we please delete Template:In the news/Important living people? It's useless. Consensus should determine a person's "importance" if and when that person's death is nominated. In addition to being useless, it's also not in use. It's not part of WP:ITN/DC and has zero transclusions. Nightw 11:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I attempted to explain the significance of the event, though no other editors responded after that comment. Why did that happen? ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 01:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If/when Joe Paterno resigns, we've got to have it in ITN. For those of you not familiar with American sports, imaging God resigning due to a sex-abuse scandal. I'd guess JoePa is America's most famous living sports coach; he's been in charge at Penn State since 1966. 8,193 articles on Google News right now. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 23:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear, Paterno isn't being accused of anything, except that he may not have done enough from a moral standpoint by reporting his assistant coach to Penn State and not the authorities. Grand master ka 04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
If we are going to argue about the numbers of deaths adding to the notability of an incident, can we at least quote the correct number in our arguments. For this accident, the death toll was 74, as a look at the article will tell. Mjroots ( talk) 16:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to start. But a very important news:
13 July 2011:
BBC News:
Mumbai: Explosions shake India's financial hub
The Hindu:
At least 13 killed, 81 injured in Mumbai blasts: Chavan
–
∃
Aditya
7 ¦
16:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
why do we keep getting NPA responses to indivudual opinions DESPITE policy? people are supposed to comment on the ISSUE not the respondent whp is perfectly well entitles to hids view whaever it is regardless of what others think as long as there is a reason for consensus building and not "support per X" Lihaas ( talk) 20:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
How is the retirement of a basketball player worthy of inclusion on ITN? He's not even one of the all-time greats. Can someone explain this decision to me? – Pee Jay 12:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
One problem with the current system of using tags ([Posted], [Ready], etc.) is it discourages review of items where consensus might've changed after posting (which goes against the idea that consensus can change. Yao Ming, for example, had almost no consensus to post originally, then got 3 more opposes and only one support after (and please tell give me the consensus doesn't equal vote tally line). Though I opposed it it's too late for me to care if this particular item gets pulled, but I think it's something to think about for the future. Hot Stop talk- contribs 20:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Seldom looked at and even more rarely carried over to ITN/C, what's the justification for keeping this? A large number of the items posted are already listed at ITN/R, but even for those that are not: if the events are so notable, surely someone would nominate them when they occur?
One possible reason for keeping it is to list articles that may need attention (e.g., expanding, updating) before being nominated at ITN/C, but is this pre-emptive process actually working? Nightw 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, before I change the heading formats, is there any reason why we have Wikipedia:In the news/Future events/2011, which is then transcluded on Wikipedia:In the news/Future events? Can't we just use a top level heading for 2011, and another for 2012, without needing to maintain separate transcluded pages? That's only going to make life harder for the bot, and is confusing to edit. Modest Genius talk 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Entries in this list are automatically transferred to the
Candidates page by
AnomieBOT. Please place items under the appropriate date. When making new section headers, please use month day only. Any other format, including date ranges, will be ignored by the bot. |
Well it looks like we're ready to me. Are there any other issues anyone can see? Nightw 06:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The blurb for the Norway attacks still says the death toll is "at least 17", but with it now over 80, the the total should be changed, else it's true but deceptive. - Rrius ( talk) 02:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I added the text "Events are not required to affect multiple countries." to the criteria and I was reverted by Crispmuncher. To me it seems like an obvious clarification. We regularly post events which don't affect multiple countries. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Also I think it'd be good to unprotect the talk page for the news template. So submitting edit requests to it would be more intuitive. Egg Centric 13:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
How about we remove the 2011 Norway attacks article from the ITTN on the main page until the stupidity on that page dies down? It's gonna make Wikipedia look really bad otherwise. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
Hope I'm in the right place to do this... Yesterday, the 2011 Copa América, a globally known major international football (soccer) tournament in South America, ended with Uruguay claiming their 15th title. I know Mexico's win in the North American equivalent was not posted ITN, but the Asian equivalent was and I have no doubt the winner of the European equivalent will be posted ITN. The event did receive significant coverage worldwide. I think it should included in the template. So if it isn't a bother, can someone please add it. Thanks in advance. Digirami ( talk) 19:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The recent (and still second article on the template) posting of the end of the Tour de France occurred with a totally rewritten and undiscussed blurb. Several editors have since pointed out reasons why the proposed and discussed blurbs were preferable to that unilaterally posted, both at ITN/C and on WP:ERRORS. No change has been made, nor has any admin responded* to say why they are unwilling to change the blurb to that about which consensus built. *: except for one very unfortunate exchange, which reflects well on neither of the participants
I would not object in principle to the posting admin making some changes to the blurb, especially if the phrasing has not been widely addressed in the ITN/C discussion, but in doing so, he/she should be aware that that phrasing has not gained consensus, and so it is incumbent on him/her to remain alert to observations on it, and humble enough to change it if generates legitimate criticism. Kevin McE ( talk) 08:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I notice that today's ITN links to plain English words like 'cycling' and 'Australian'. Does ITN have a guideline on linking plain English words? Lightmouse ( talk) 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that guideline says:
Yet we see 'cycling' and 'Australian' linked in ITN on the Main Page. Is that a one-off error or something wrong with review? Lightmouse ( talk) 10:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I did see the discussion WP:ERRORS but I didn't see the thread above. That does provide some context, thanks for pointing it out. I hope it will improve review. Lightmouse ( talk) 10:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone else had a look at this lately? It's not very helpful. The whole Significance sub-section goes like this...
Has something been lost here? It tells me how this criterion "was previously written", but not what it is now. Maybe I'm missing something, but if that's all we have, it's no wonder we have occasional disagreements. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be added back aswell. The wording probably needs to be changed, but a significant part of the criteria just disappeared. We can draft a new wording here and then replace the current section with something we all agree on. Nightw 11:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
In the past week local media all over the world, even many "reliable sources", covered the "phenomenon" of sunrise or sunset doing something "interesting" in the streets of New York. It was pure trivia, but easily accessible to world media because they all have easy access to American sources. It made nice pictures and video for that final news item/gap filler. But still pure trivia. So massive coverage, but we wouldn't include it here, I hope. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The other point to remember is that you strongly support posting elections for small-town sized countries. I initially was against that, but realised that if someone was going to write a suitable update it didn't really matter and was worth posting. Therefore in reasonable exchange you should allow people to post other items that you don't like without calling them trivial. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Why? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 23:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is there still news up for more than a week. That is seriously stale. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 00:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious about why the blurb about the debt ceiling crisis has been replaced with an older blurb. The edit summary says "there should not be two items on the same topic", but as we have decided after extensive discussions in ITN, these two items are not on the same topic, and that they both deserve to be posted on ITN. Why was no attention paid to the decision-making process in ITN? Should we expect admins to remove any item that they personally have qualms about, irrespective of the fact that they have gone through an extensive (and I'd say overly extensive) nomination process? Jim Sukwutput 20:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Let this be a warning: I for one will absolutely not tolerate the use of ITN/C for soapboxing or making political points. While broad discussion of nominated items is allowed and, to an extent, encouraged, that discussion should be confined to the item's suitability for ITN. Inappropriate or off-topic remarks will be collapsed or removed, and those who repeatedly make wildly inappropriate comments will very quickly meet the same fates as Lihaas ( talk · contribs). To all those who would disrupt ITN/C, or use it as a soapbox, you have been warned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
So here's a link to my post at WT:MP/Errors. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought, but shouldn't the link for "preliminary success" on CLL research go to the wikinews article instead of the page for CLL? That page is already a redirect from "chronic lymphocytic leukemia".. CatDuFoe 10:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There look to have been some rather slow updates recently, I think that if content has been on ITN for more than 5 days nominations should effectively become ITNR events and the opinions on the candidates page should be ignored. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's silly season. Enough said. Modest Genius talk 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think most of it is attributable to the lack of nominations. We're getting an average of 2 nominations per day. Compare that to the 5-7 that we often get a few months ago. Jim Sukwutput 03:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
August 2011 Gaza Attack should be linked on the Main Page - this attack was the result of Hamas breaking the truce with Israel. Polozooza ( talk) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This point needs to be reworded:
Quite ambiguous, makes it sound as if Hamas is conducting air strikes. 96.240.143.69 ( talk) 04:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The article name has been changed - please change the current link to 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Would this be considered ITN-worthy if it hadn't been in a big WASPy part of the United States? I know there are no official ITN criteria for natural disasters, but I seem to recall lots of other natural disasters in other parts of the world being rejected before because they weren't "big" enough or not many people died or something like that. I see this one has a decent-sized article written on it (I've never seen so many words taken to describe so little damage!), which I guess helps (per WP:ITN#Criteria: "Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commentors that it is deserving of inclusion."). But to be honest I just don't see this as very world-shaking (pardon the pun) news. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(oudent) David Levy, thanks for the helpful response; I hadn't checked /Candidates (been a while since I participated here, I thought that would have been archived right now and I had forgotten where to look for it). I see that it was controversial but at least it was thought about. To everyone else: perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "WASP", I wasn't meaning to be derogatory but merely to suggest that this was maybe only of interest because it's close to home for a lot of en-wiki editors, whereas a similar earthquake happening somewhere else might not have qualified here.
The rest of the comments above are just snarky asides and I don't have any response for them. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
( ←) Nowhere on Wikipedia is it ever "valid" to accuse someone of ethnocentrism of any type. It goes against WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in every sense. Does personal bias such as ethnocentrism exist? Of course it does! Is the way to deal with it to start flinging accusations left and right and create a flame war? Never. There are designated ways to handle suspected conflicts of interest (which depends on the level of disruption) detailed at WP:COI. However, nowhere else on Wikipedia is it acceptable to use bad faith assumptions and personal attacks in a dispute. It's no different here. This is not a DR forum. All of this should go without saying, as it only summarizes our normal practices, but the recent string of blatantly inappropriate behavior has led me to assume that it needs to be spelled out. If you suspect personal bias, handle it in an appropriate forum like every one else on Wikipedia. Personal attacks are never acceptable and are always conterproductive. Swarm u | t 17:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I am going to say something that will almost guarantee you can achieve what you want. If there was a calm rational statement above, I could respond, but there's not. You're are behaving like a bunch of rabid dogs. I do not post in the same, conformist way as others (of whom we are frequently reminded almost a majority are Americans). I do come from a different culture, one where it has historically been said that we call a spade a spade. I'm not good at being politically correct. I am good at pointing out the truth where it's not always attractive. Call that unrepentant if you like. You must realise that you are unlikely to change someone who is different by culture. On the issue of anything-centrism, it does happen in Wikipedia. It's not good for Wikipedia. But you don't want to stop it. You want to silence the person who points it out. I genuinely don't get it. Is it politically incorrect? Silence me for not understanding, if you like, but it won't make me change my views. Wouldn't it be more civilised to discuss the hard stuff? HiLo48 ( talk) 08:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a legitimate point to be made about US bias—Americans make up about half of our editorship, and if we all write about topics that interest us, it's logical that we'll have a greater proliferation of articles on American subjects than, say, British or Australian topics. But accusing people of bias at every opportunity is using Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is exactly what I blocked Lihaas for a few weeks ago. On a related note, ITN does a pretty good job of geographical diversity and, on Wikipedia in general, if you want to point the finger at a nation whose coverage is disproportionate to its size (bear in mind that the US is the third largest country by population), then it would be best pointed at the UK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
American bias (and Anglophone bias in general) is a real problem in Wikipedia. But criticising it too often can easily become disruptive. Instead of such a radical measure like an indefinite topic ban, can we not get a promise from HiLo48 not to talk about American bias for a few months? Nanobear ( talk) 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Just want to chip in my 2 cents here: I think it's silly not to mention the US in the blurb when that's the main reason that people will be looking for information on the topic. At the very least, we can say that hurricane warnings have been posted from Massachusetts to North Carolina and/or that hurricane evacuation orders have been issued for NYC for the first time. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
So Mark Hurd bails on HP because of "expense-account irregularities", after which HP bails on the consumer market. In the news? Nope. Steve Jobs quits and it's #1 with a picture. Why does Jobs' relatively mundane departure get on ITN but Hurd not even get honourable mention. -- 108.132.92.8 ( talk) 00:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"*Support iconic business decision. Gates' standing down should clearly have been posted. Given Apple is more profitable and more valuable than Microsoft Jobs is definitely a peer of Gates. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, sorry not Gates. A comment from Reuters compared Steve Jobs not to Bill Gates but to Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Walt Disney, Michael Jordan, and Jesus. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Who cares what Reuters says? Gates was the pioneer of modern computing. It's almost solely because of his work (and with the initial boost of IBM, of course) that computers, and technology as a whole, became so accessible to the public, during a time when technological advancements were not embraced as much as they are today. Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM were pioneers; Apple built upon this to create their success. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)"
Ericleb01, you're welcome to your opinion but you call Gates "the pioneer" when he didn't have any hardware product. (Wozniak's Apple II came out three years before the IBM PC for example.) I don't think it's fair to say that "computers, and technology as a whole, became so accessible to the public" because of Gates. Also, IBM only wanted good licensing terms; they didn't specifically need Gates's BASIC interpreter and operating system. Thank you for your interest. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is this still on the main page? It has been on there for 4 days. I don't think it is "In the news." Very regional event. Starting to get stale. And why is that event still on while newer events, like 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks were removed a few days after they were posted? Who is responsible for managing this? Wikifan Be nice 22:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I see no page about "errors" regarding the article in the link you posted. I cannot find the article. I don't see any mention of "errors" here either than a small minority of editors complaining about the blurb. Nobody is proliferating conspiracy theories. So? Wikifan Be nice 21:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
He still remains so until the next election so shouldn't it be worded as 'announces his resignation' rather than 'resigns'? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 14:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This is, or has become, an issue of user conduct. Please take it to AE, ANI, or back to WQA. Questions concerning the applicability of general sanctions, whether under ARBPIA or other measures, should be directed to WT:AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As per the discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Jim_Sukwutput, I feel there are no personal attack issues, but there could be an emergence of WP:BATTLEGROUND issues that could affect the functioning of the very important WP:ITN area (including all the ITN subpages and talk pages) - which affects the Main Page. I promised to raise an RfC in the WQA thread, and here it is. I am also supporting this position. To be clear, this RfC is not about specific user behavior, rather about a implementing an ArbCom decision that recognizes that there are particular general issues with the ARBPIA topic area that require extra-care on the part of involved editors. Any issues with particular users - if any - should be addressed via the usual DR channels. Cerejota ( talk) 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I disagree with closing. The idea of the RfC is to empower any uninvolved admin to notify of sanctions as per WP:ARBPIA and to enforce the sanctions. For example, Wikifan is subjected to the sanctions, but since it is not clear this is a topic area if the thread is about ARBPIA stuff, no action can be taken. That Wikifan is not sticking to the topic at hand (and should as such delete all the stuff about Jim) is no reason not to have this RfC closed. It is in WT:ITN because this is about ITN. D'oh! This is legit request, that should be processed as such, not to be dismissed simply because a poster disagrees with it.-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
|
RfC reopened at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles#RfC:_Should_WP:ITN_area_discussions_on_items_in_the_WP:ARBPIA_topic_area_be_subjected_to_WP:ARBPIA_itself.3F-- Cerejota ( talk) 21:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems like we have a consensus to post this.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not encyclopedic, is it? a plane is a woodworking tool. The correct encyclopedic term is aircraft (i.e. a craft that travels through the air). We shouldn't be using colliquialisms on the Main Page. Mjroots ( talk) 08:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Why no mention of the start of the World Cup on the In The News Section? It is one of the biggest International Sporting Events this year, and surely deserves a place? Kiwibeca ( talk) 05:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Ecological Debt Day is
September 27, 2011.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, if the so-called "worldwide opposition" is mentioned, the blurb should identify him as "convicted cop-killer", so as not to be biased to one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.168.194 ( talk) 23:22, September 22, 2011
If there's one thing I've noticed about WP:ITN that makes it different from the rest of Wikipedia, it's that it seems to be largely detached or tangential to the fundamental policies that guide the creation and maintenance of Wikipedia articles. So as a result, while scrolling through some of the potential candidates, I am seeing the same arguments for/against posting an ITN candidate being stated, each with varying amounts of success:
Reading through the arguments myself, I see a trend of subjectivity; namely judgment calls as to whether or not an article is worth posting. I'm not sure if this is what is intended with the WP:ITN/C process? Furthermore, I can't really find any definitive criteria for whether something is worth posting, simply that it's in the news, that there's an article about it, and said article is sufficiently updated (note that many candidates that meet these criteria are still excluded). I think we'd solve a lot of problems and issues if we firmly laid down what is necessary for something to be posted, rather than rely entirely on subjective analysis, which is going to result in certain articles being (or not being) featured based on who happens to show up to discuss a candidacy. As it currently stands, I have the feeling that many administrators who make the final call as to whether something should be posted simply count the "Support/Oppose" ratio, as that's really all they can do given the monumental amount of discretion afforded to them.-- WaltCip ( talk) 20:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the it:wp event was added and then removed without a link to discussion, and I can't find a discussion here. Why was it removed? I have no opinion about whether removal is good or bad; it's simply the complete lack of discussion or the obscurity of the discussion that I find problematic. Nyttend ( talk) 04:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a silly rule. What about abolishing it?-- Kozuch ( talk) 21:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
There has been discussion recently at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about the possibility of going from 6 hooks to seven in each set of DYKs. (The number of hooks in each set and the frequency of updates had been reduced due to a shortage of candidate hooks. The hook supply has increased somewhat no, so it should be possible to sustain larger hook sets again.) I believe this would allow ITN to feature at least one additional item. Would this change be acceptable to ITN? Would it be welcomed?? -- Orlady ( talk) 17:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In "updated content"
The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient. |
---|
to
The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient. |
---|
and in "Deaths", remove the text
In addition, the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria) and the article as a whole must be B-class and/or be satisfactorily filled out with no major omissions of the person's life and effect. |
---|
Reasons': I think it is a significant issue that, quite frequently, ITN suffers from confusion as to how an article should be updated. The consensus process is there to protect against rank stupidity, but there are certain types of event that don't always carry with them a lot of opportunity for updating, even though they are ITN-worthy. Awards are one example, but deaths can be another. Creating a whole section to cover a person's death may sometimes be an excellent idea. But sometimes it might also result in the inclusion of a pointless short list of reactions from colleagues, just to fulfil the updating criteria. Another good example is the recent decision of Saudi Arabia to grant women the vote. Obviously appropriate for ITN, but SA is quite a closed society, so all there really was to update was the fact that it happened and a reaction from Amnesty International. Additionally, WP had no information about the history of voting and women's participation in Saudi Arabia, so a substantial amount of content was created. This isn't really considered an "update", but probably should be in those types of circumstance.
Ta. -- FormerIP ( talk) 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I note Template:In the news currently has cascading protection set. I'm not sure what was intended by doing so, but it is probably not doing what you actually intend and is therefore worse than useless. The important parts of the template are already covered by virtue of being transcluded onto the Main page; the only thing covered by the cascading protection on this template that is not covered by Main page is this template's documentation, which is contrary to the intent of a template documentation subpage. See also further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#/doc subpages of cascade-protected templates.
Unless anyone has a good reason why this template should itself have cascading protection instead of relying on cascading from Main page to cover the important bits, I will remove the cascading from this template soonish. Anomie ⚔ 14:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed that we haven't had archives of ITN stories since June... If anyone has some free time, writing that would be appreciated. -- Tone 14:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been following the In-the-news box eagerly for years, and I think it's excellent. However, one flaw I've noticed is its tendency to include events of relatively low interest but that are somewhat similar in nature to another recent major event. I don't want to give individual examples of what have been such relatively low interest events, but a typical example of a recent major event could have been "An earthquake kills 1000 people", followed a couple of days later by the relatively low interest event of "An earthquake in (another country) leaves 2 people injured". Perhaps the underlying mechanism for this tendency is that the previous major event leaves editors to believe that earthquakes are interesting, and indeed they are sometimes, but in fact there are also earthquakes that are relatively less interesting when comparing to everything else that happens in the world, which motivates to be extra careful when dealing with similar events in the near future after any major event. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 15:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that they appear on the main page, aren't images in ITN supposed to be fully protected, same as with DYK and TFA? I ask this because the 787 image isn't (and, for that matter, the picture of General Khan isn't either...) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:ANI#Extensive copyright violations by User:Night w, it appears that there is a very significant chance that significant portions of much of Palestine 194 are copyright violations. I'm not comfortable editing the template by myself, having no familiarity with any Main Page process; hopefully an ITN member sees this ASAP. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the item "The elements darmstadtium, roentgenium and copernicium are named ..." very old news? / 95.209.209.35 ( talk) 10:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
We seem to be getting more and more posts of late that incorrectly assert ITNR or minority topic status. With ITNR it is usually pretty clear-cut but minority topics are somewhat more open to interpretation. I propose the docs (and comments) for the ITN Candidate template are adjusted to require an explanation of which minority topic criterion is being asserted for a given entry. Does anyone have any objections or other comments? Crispmuncher ( talk) 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC).
Can we please delete Template:In the news/Important living people? It's useless. Consensus should determine a person's "importance" if and when that person's death is nominated. In addition to being useless, it's also not in use. It's not part of WP:ITN/DC and has zero transclusions. Nightw 11:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I attempted to explain the significance of the event, though no other editors responded after that comment. Why did that happen? ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 01:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If/when Joe Paterno resigns, we've got to have it in ITN. For those of you not familiar with American sports, imaging God resigning due to a sex-abuse scandal. I'd guess JoePa is America's most famous living sports coach; he's been in charge at Penn State since 1966. 8,193 articles on Google News right now. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 23:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear, Paterno isn't being accused of anything, except that he may not have done enough from a moral standpoint by reporting his assistant coach to Penn State and not the authorities. Grand master ka 04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)