![]() | 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. |
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.
In recognition that the location of the picture in ITN at the top of the section frequently places it next to an unrelated or even inappropriate blurb I recommend the following change to ITN's procedure.
This proposal would remove potential reader confusion as to the correlation of image and blurb. While this removes the pictured item from the strict reverse chronological order, I am not convinced that the average reader (not editor) of ITN is even aware that the section is in such order. -- Khajidha ( talk) 13:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:In the news has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the dash between the RDs from a "-" to a "—" like the one between the ongoings. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900) Talk 08:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you know about the news about the re-writing of a modern Christmas song, to fund money for charity for Ebola? Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 06:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's called "Do they know it's Christmas", that song. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 06:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The vicious 'IS' murder of aid worker Peter Kassig — along with a dozen Syrian soldiers — hasn't been nominated. Have such horrible events become so common they're old hat?
Speaking of old hats, the sale of Napoleon's dopey hat for $2.4 million probably will be nominated, despite the essentially trivial nature of this event.
We should probably update the Philae lander blurb as it looks like old news. Everyone knows it landed and had whole bunch of problems then landed in shade and is already dead. Perhaps update it with Phile Lander "loses all communication after landing issues" or something similar? -- Ashish -g55 16:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
In Mexico City, thousands protest the disappearance of 43 students and subsequent discovery of mass graves.
Strikes me as awkward language. It sorta implies the protests are over the discovery of mass graves rather than the killing of the 43 students. Perhaps we should do;
In Mexico City, thousands protest the disappearance of 43 students after the discovery of mass graves. or; In Mexico City, thousands protest the killing of 43 students after the discovery of mass graves.
NickCT ( talk) 13:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please add Mike Nichols to recent deaths? I'm surprised he hasn't been added already considering he's an icon of stage and screen. -- ThylekShran ( talk) 06:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems the article was good enough (or has since been made such) to be added to the main page. So, all is good. :) -- ThylekShran ( talk) 01:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I am thinking that it would be a good idea for us to compile traffic stats for each news item posted so that we can understand if we are posting things of interest to our readers, or not. As an example, Phillip Hughes garnered 420,000 views today. 2014 Ferguson unrest peaked at 133,000 daily views. Magnus Carlsen peaked at 39,000 daily views and World Chess Championship 2014 peaked at 27,000. 2014 Formula One season rated 29,000 and Lewis Hamilton had 53,000. Romanian presidential election, 2014 peaked at 18,000 and Klaus Iohannis at 48,000.
Hughes and Ferguson had long, contentious discussions, while other nominations with lower (but still respectable) numbers sailed right through. This leads me to believe that our discussions may be focusing on the wrong criteria. Wikipedia exists for the readers, not for the editors. We should promote news items that people find interesting. We can use data from http://stats.grok.se/ to evaluate whether we are doing a good job and to discover what types of stories generate the most interest. Jehochman Talk 03:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently the link for ISIS is
{{nowrap|[[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} 2014|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]}}
It should probably be changed to
{{nowrap|[[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]}}
so the year auto-updates. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 05:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I wish to put on the record that the manner in which the Garner death nomination was received was very unfortunate and I believe could drive away a potential contributor. Referring to nominations as "wrong", "hard to believe this was nominated seriously", and "absurd" does not help keep contributors here. We want to have people nominate things, I thought. Disagree with a nomination all you want(I did as well); but we should not bite the newcomers. There are ways to inform people of what is looked for in a nomination without calling them wrong or absurd. People needing to be aware of what is required is not a reason to act in a poor manner(leaving aside a learning curve) Not one of our finer moments. 331dot ( talk) 22:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks 331 for mentioning this. I would have opposed this nomination as the reaction wasn't the same as for Brown. But editors need to realize the tone they use can be problematic. WaltClip's oppose is an example of how not to bite newcomers. -- Calidum 00:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason we are {{ nowrap}}ing the entries in the Ongoing section? The list of recently featured articles on the Main Page doesn't do this, and the two should probably be consistent. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've debated with myself posting this on Jehochman's talk page rather than here, but I think it needs wider input. I've tried to characterise editors' positions fairly below, but I've pinged them all so that they are aware of the discussion and can correct the record below if I've got it wrong. If so, please accept my apologies.
There seems to be a basic disconnect between editors, or perhaps groups of editors, about what are the criteria for posting an item to WP:ITN.
On the one hand, some think that the main criterion is that an item is In The News. For instance, in current items we have @
Thryduulf: So posting an item to ITN when it is the worldwide top story in the news is not the right time? When is?
and @
Count Iblis: It is in the News but there is still no link to a Wiki article unlike in most other cases
, but by far the biggest proponent of this view seems to be @
Jehochman: with this as part of the rationale for posting an item: The opposes based on the personal opinion that crackpots with guns don't deserve our attention aren't convincing when the story, for whatever reason, is making headlines around the world.
, this in defending that posting: It's generally accepted that we post items that are widely in the news, which this one clearly is, per the comments. If a handful of editors disagree with the policy/guidelines, they can't really generate a new consensus within the confines of this discussion
, this in a discussion about an item: For good or for ill, our mission is to list articles "In the news" so people can learn about current events,
this supporting a nomination: Support when the article is updated. The item is in the news, and the article has substantial enough content to appear on the main page once it is touched up
, this in a discussion: Keep in mind that this item will be decided based on whether it is widely reported in the news, article quality, yada yada other criteria, not whether you think the item is newsworthy
to pull a few recent examples.
On the other hand, another group of editors think that the main criterion is that an item has encyclopaedic value. This is often expressed by the phrase, We are not a news ticker. In this camp, we have @
RGloucester: In my opinion, this is exactly the type of thing we should not post. It simply doesn't have encyclopaedic relevance in a wider context. WP:NOTNEWS springs to mind. I believe the purpose of ITN is to promote articles on news that has encyclopaedic relevance
, @
331dot: Please understand that being major news is not the only consideration in posting something to the ITN box on the main page, as we aren't a news ticker
, @
The Rambling Man: Wikipedia is not a news ticker, nor should it be
, and @
Masem: WP, and particularly at ITN, need to avoid being too focused on events of the now and instead focus on the events with more long-term, larger-scope impact
.
There is an existing consensus on the criteria for posting an item, expressed at WP:ITN in these words:
Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content.
There is a longer section earlier on that page about the purpose of ITN, which is often quoted, but the above quote represents the consensus on how items at ITN are to be evaluated.
I see nothing here about the breadth of news coverage an item is receiving. In light of this, I find Jechochman's statement that, If a handful of editors disagree with the policy/guidelines, they can't really generate a new consensus within the confines of this discussion,
rather disturbing, as the existing guideline in fact appears to be entirely on the side of that 'handful' of editors. There is also the existing consensus expressed in policy at
WP:NOTNEWS, which states:
While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.
This seems to me to also argue against breadth-of-coverage as a metric for assessing ITN items, and as policy our guidelines cannot override it.
On the other hand, assessing the significance of the developments described in the updated content is difficult, always subjective and hard to get perspective on when, pretty much by definition, all of the items we handle are going to have been posted in the last week. Since this criterion will always be a subjective assessment, discussions on items seem likely to descend to a 'Yes it is', 'No it isn't!' level of debate and the only methods available for an admin to decide whether to post an item or not will be either popularity (a vote) or the admin's own judgement of encyclopaedic value (ignoring the discussion altogether). Neither of these seems particularly desirable.
So what's needed here? Is the guideline out of step with reality and in need of updating? Or do some editors (and indeed admins) need reminding of what the guideline actually says and leave it at that?
Please understand that I'm not trying to stir up dissent here; I'm trying to get us all on the same page so that discussions at ITN/C are less adversarial. GoldenRing ( talk) 23:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
AND at least one of the following is also true
Another angle on this—I'm not saying better or worse—might be to ask "what Wikipedia articles of reasonable quality and importance would/might significant numbers of our readers (including casual readers and newcomers) who follow current events of significance be interested in reading?" Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If there were more nominations we could up our game. One reason borderline stuff gets posted is that there's nothing better available. Please nominate the type of articles you'd like to see posted. If you like geography, Denmark just filed a claim of sovereignty over the North Pole. [1] The article Territorial claims in the Arctic could be updated and posted. Jehochman Talk 05:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
ITN is still a good vehicle when we have an existing article on a subject and news on that changes/develops, or we have an event that we know will be documented (like elections and sporting events) that we're just waiting for the event to happen to finish it. Its events no one expects (for better or worse) that is where ITN has the largest issue, and that follows from the longer trends of issues with WP's WP:NOT#NEWS aspect. People want to race to be the first to create an article on a breaking event without establishing if the event is notable or has the permanence for an encyclopedia, and that creates a glut of articles that after a few days have no further coverage and will be forgotten for the most part. ITN needs to be a bit careful in how it selects topics, and because we are not a news ticker, we don't have to follow exactly what the news is covering nor with the timeliness they demand. We should be waiting for the article on the event to prove that it has more that can be said than just simply recounting the events, except in rare IAR cases (like I think we did with the Boston Marathon bombings). And that might mean that an event well-covered by the news cycle is something we simply ignore for ITN. -- MASEM ( t) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we might want to better define diversity. At List of continents by population we see that Asia has 4.2 billion of 7.1 people on earth. Africa as 1.0 billion and the Americas about 0.9 billion with South America exceeding North America by about 0.1, and Europe at about 0.7 billion. Our news items should roughly reflect world demographics. At the moment we have 4 Asia stories, 1 Africa, 1 North America and 1 Oceania (including ongoing items ebola and ISIS). This is just about right. If we have enough items to choose from, we should try to keep geographic balance. We should also keep topic balance: some politics/military/crime, some culture/sports, some science, some {list of other fields}. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman asked me to propose a draft of revised criteria for posting ITN items, and I'm happy to oblige. As he has shown interest in addressing the concerns mentioned, I have hope that we will be able to reform this process for the good of the encylopaedia. My proposed draft criteria is as follows:
The purpose of the In the news section of the Wikipedia main page is not to mirror the top stories reported at any given news outlet. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a breaking news ticker, and ITN nominations should keep this principle in mind. ITN is meant to serve as a showcase for good Wikipedia articles that have been updated with content that is of current encyclopaedic interest. This does not mean that new articles are excluded from ITN, but that caution should be taken in posting articles on breaking news stories. In order to decide whether an article is suitable to appear in the In the news section, the following criteria should be applied:
- Article quality
- Encyclopaedic significance
- Timeliness
As articles showcased in ITN appear on the main page of Wikipedia, they should be of a good quality, meaning that they should be comprehensive, referenced, and written in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They should be up-to-date, and should adequately illustrate the matter mentioned by a proposed ITN posting. Only a limited number of articles can appear in ITN at a given time, and as such, care should be taken to ensure that items posted have encyclopaedic significance. It is important to evaluate whether an item will have a lasting relevance in its field or context, while remembering that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, items posted must be of timely interest. Stories that are months old, or that are not featuring in the news at a given time should not be posted.
In many cases, an item's qualities in one of these areas can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in to improve the article. Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion. A successful nomination will normally go through several procedural steps before being posted to the ITN section of the Wikipedia main page.
What do you fellows think? I believe that this calls attention to the appropriate policies and guidelines, and ensures more caution in making a posting than does the present criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
With the tend in recent years for editors to spend their time slapping maintenance tags on articles, rather than improving them ("Here's a tag, somebody else can improve it"), ITN shouldn't bar articles just because they are tagged for minor issues. Best practice should be to do a quick cleanup and then remove any tags about minor issues such as "Could use more references". Most articles can, even featured articles. I recently saw a featured article that was tagged {{
lead too long}}
. One editor thought the lead was too long. Presumably we could find another editor who would say {{
lead too short}}
. As long as the article isn't tagged for serious problems, such as {{
NPOV}}
or {{
Copyvio}}
, we shouldn't disqualify.
Jehochman
Talk
15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
is beautiful and I have fixed the one you added already.
Jehochman
Talk
16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Bencherlite mentioned that it can make it hard to gauge how many items to include in ITN if the TFA column varies in length from day to day ... I'm just checking to make sure the small variations we've had so far in January have been working for you guys. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Mario Cuomo passed away two weeks ago, and Edward Brooke 10 days ago. Can we post some of the more recent Recent Deaths to replace them? I think a brief featuring of a less overwhelmingly supported candidate is better than a long listing of a candidate that has lost the public's interest. Listings at the front page definitely drive reader attention, and this does lead (generally) to article improvement. μηδείς ( talk) 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
An idea based on one of the current ITN/C's (the Croatian election), for ITN/R's where there is usually a page for the specific results (so, say the results of an election, or the results of a sporting event like the Superbowl), we could have a placeholder section "Upcoming events" to seed these no earlier more than a week earlier specifically to make sure that the article quality is highlighted and hoping to attract editors to help out so that when the event is completed, there is minimal time between the conclusion and posting. The format approach would be the same (using the ITN Candidate template), and when the event actually occurs, the nomination is simply moved from this holding section into the actual nomination queue, allowing any ongoing discussion to occur. The only thing that might not be known is a quality blurb but that's something that can be added once the event is moved from the holding section to the right date. It would not be required, obviously, but if an editor wants to get a jump to minimize time on this ITN/R events to get posting, this would help. -- MASEM ( t) 21:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I was under the distinct impression this would of been nominated on ITN/C with fervent gusto after the award ceremony took place? Can I actually take this opportunity to congratulate whoever resisted the urge to put this article forward for nomination? And on a side note, wasn't this ITN/R? Oh thank God it didn't appear. At any rate. -- Somchai Sun ( talk) 18:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there any value in these remarks? I'm trying to understand what value it adds, and why it doesn't seem to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.93.195 ( talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This nomination about congolese riots by Monopoly31121993 has been marked ready for 30 hours without admin comment or action. Can Spencer or Stephen or any other admins who pay attention here please post the nomination or explain what work still needs doing? Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 00:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently we have a clause in the RD instructions that states "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". It strikes me we pay no attention whatsoever to the "class" of the article, indeed just tonight we have R. K. Laxman posted whose article is still classified as a "Start" quality article. Now I realise we have the caveat that the article should be "satisfactorily filled out" (whatever that really means) but my question is, do we really need a reference to a specific class of article? History seems to dictate that we wholesale ignore it and therefore it is my proposal that we remove that clause altogether and just state "the article has been satisfactorily updated and has no major omissions of the person's life and effect". The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not exactly a regular at ITN, but I was under the impression that, ITN/R or not, all potential ITN items have to gain consensus to ITN/C before being posted. Unless I'm blind, 2015 AFC Asian Cup Final doesn't seem to have been taken to ITN/C at all before it was posted (although I think it's been posted in the past and I don't doubt that it would have gained consensus again). Have I missed something, or are admins now able to go ahead and post any ITN/R item they feel like? IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page before being posted. Listing here is not an automatic guarantee that an item will be posted.
ITR/R items won't be posted unless you nominate them, as the rules require a nomination, but rather
ITR/R items probably won't be posted unless you nominate them, as no one is actively looking at ITN/R-related articles. Except I did here. You'll see that the Sergio Mattarella nomination (an ITN/R event), which did receive a nomination, also didn't receive any real support (and actually received opposition) before being posted, because it was judged to be sufficiently updated. -- tariqabjotu 11:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just had a look at this entry:
What surprises me here, is that of the four terms linked, all of which have specific articles for exactly those terms, namely American football, New England Patriots, Seattle Seahawks and Super Bowl, only the first of the links in ITN actually points to that article. The "hook" part of it, Super Bowl, I can understand - the news item is specifically about that news event (although perhaps including the XLIX would not be a bad idea anyway). But for the two teams, I think the link to the season article rather than the general team article is wrong. If I click a New England Patriots link I expect to get to New England Patriots. Many people visiting the page will want to know general information about the team, not so much about their 2014 season.
I realise there is a fairly long standing "convention" regarding this, and many news items follow this sort of format, hence why I'm raising it here. Personally I think it would be better to use less piped links here, but I'm interested to hear others' views. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 15:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It takes me to a 404 error page. Is it working for anyone else? Everymorning talk 19:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a noun. I don't see how the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant can be ongoing (as a noun), so I thought I would bring it up here. Dustin (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've noticed that, for the past few weeks at least, there has been a distinct lack of coverage of US-related topics on the ITN ticker compared to years past, except for those events that are ITN/R. All I can say is: keep up the good work. -- WaltCip ( talk) 18:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no story about Europe either. So what? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Rambling_Man. Thank you. --
AmaryllisGardener
talk
22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
The Rambling Man has repeatedly acted inappropriately at WP:ITN/C. His comments have violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA several times, and are rude in general. I have several examples, all of these events having occurred in the last couple of months:
I must add that AFAIK, TRM has never apogized for any of this. The examples I've listed only go back to November 2014. I could go on and on listing his rude comments. Anyone can add to this list in a comment below. -- AmaryllisGardener talk 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC) ProposalI propose that The Rambling Man be topic banned from editing Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates because of his incivility.
|
Is there any chance of this being posted? If there's zero chance do tell it know so other people could waste time and effort on this article and not me lol. – H T D 23:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What happened to the shortened form of reporting of current events? The main reason I open this page first thing every morning is to get a brief 1 sentence (15-25 words) overview of the top 8-10 events that are happening. If I want to know more there are the associated links and I can go into more depth. But I dont need a 110 word recapping of the Dayton 500 and other events.
Also as the country of the event can be one of the primary indicators of level of relevance to me (I follow Asia Pacific) I would also like to suggest the following format
Country : 10-12 words summary
For example Bangladesh: Death toll from the weekend ferry disaster rises to 70. (AP) Australia: Entertainer Rolf Harris is stripped of his Order of Australia honours following recent convictions in the United Kingdom for indecent assault. (ABC News Australia) Egypt: Political activist is sentenced to five years in jail for violating a rule against organising political protests without permission. (Al-Arabiyah)
Just a thought. (Hopefully these comments are in the right talk section. Do move them if I am placing them astray.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.124.240 ( talk) 16:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In scanning the "In The News" section, I noticed what I believe to be a new entry, regarding Nascar, posted below the already existing entry concerning the movie Birdman.
Might I recommend not publishing new entries to "In The News" below existing entries?
It makes it harder to scan for new news items, and shows a bias in the editors opinion on what is more newsworthy. (Movies versus Nascar, which in this case, I agree on, but that's beside the point.)
331dot suggested this might be a better place to put this, so I'm copying it here.
164.58.21.70 (
talk)
18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
early in the morning of February 24, about 32ish hours later
I'm pleased to see the current geographic diversity of ITN, which makes a refreshing change to items relating to Western Europe and North America. At the time of writing, the stories on the template are connected with the following locations: Iraq, Nigeria, none (space), Ethiopia, Lesotho and the Philippines. Good work everyone! Modest Genius talk 11:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming @ David Levy: set it up, but I wanted to say publicly what a great solution to the problem of picking an image. Excellent job, and congrats on working out how to do that. Well done. -- Jayron 32 14:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is the correct venue to propose something that would affect articles for the duration that they appear on ITN? Mjroots ( talk) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I swapped the ITN image, as the version that we had was somewhat distracting (in that the cropped letters and the microphone tip made it show three odd red spots). Should this cause any issues, any admin is welcome to revert this without any consultation. — xaosflux Talk 03:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Routinely, whenever someone is nominated for recent deaths at ITNC, debate ensues about whether this person was at the top of his or her field. Given that this phrase has been used for some time, I think the second criterion for WP:ITND should be changed to say that they were "regarded as being at or near the top of his or her field with respect to importance" or something like that. Everymorning talk 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why has the helicopter crash killing 10 people been in "In the News" for many days now? It seems like a minor item. After all, thousands of people die in transportation accidents every day. Many bus accidents ( e.g.) kill more than 10 people at a time. Are the victims all that notable? -- Macrakis ( talk) 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Presently, the edit header provides a link to the ITN Nomination template page; I would suggest that maybe including the raw text of the base example of the template's doc pages so that one can simply copy-paste from the edit header to the edit box would make things just a notch simplier. (I always open in a new tab to grab it, we're not talking like it is impossible to get this, just makes life a little simpler). -- MASEM ( t) 13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a request at T:ITN_candidate to update the template so that Blurb is optional for Ongoing and Recent Death (RD) nominations. The proposed update would also include text to indicate that the nominator is requesting the item for Ongoing or RD. Please feel free to discuss this request at the template talk page (& implement the change, if so inclined). An example of where this feature could be used is here. Mamyles ( talk) 20:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds the new ITN candidates editnotice (added by Masem) annoying? Was that discussed somewhere? It is so large it occupies the whole window when I open the edit screen. Before we just had a link to {{ ITN candidate}} which I thought was fine (though admittedly I only rarely add new nominations). How about wrapping it in a collapsed box or something to make less overwhelming when all one wants to do is comment on nominations? Dragons flight ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2015 (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. |
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.
In recognition that the location of the picture in ITN at the top of the section frequently places it next to an unrelated or even inappropriate blurb I recommend the following change to ITN's procedure.
This proposal would remove potential reader confusion as to the correlation of image and blurb. While this removes the pictured item from the strict reverse chronological order, I am not convinced that the average reader (not editor) of ITN is even aware that the section is in such order. -- Khajidha ( talk) 13:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:In the news has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the dash between the RDs from a "-" to a "—" like the one between the ongoings. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900) Talk 08:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you know about the news about the re-writing of a modern Christmas song, to fund money for charity for Ebola? Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 06:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's called "Do they know it's Christmas", that song. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 06:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The vicious 'IS' murder of aid worker Peter Kassig — along with a dozen Syrian soldiers — hasn't been nominated. Have such horrible events become so common they're old hat?
Speaking of old hats, the sale of Napoleon's dopey hat for $2.4 million probably will be nominated, despite the essentially trivial nature of this event.
We should probably update the Philae lander blurb as it looks like old news. Everyone knows it landed and had whole bunch of problems then landed in shade and is already dead. Perhaps update it with Phile Lander "loses all communication after landing issues" or something similar? -- Ashish -g55 16:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
In Mexico City, thousands protest the disappearance of 43 students and subsequent discovery of mass graves.
Strikes me as awkward language. It sorta implies the protests are over the discovery of mass graves rather than the killing of the 43 students. Perhaps we should do;
In Mexico City, thousands protest the disappearance of 43 students after the discovery of mass graves. or; In Mexico City, thousands protest the killing of 43 students after the discovery of mass graves.
NickCT ( talk) 13:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please add Mike Nichols to recent deaths? I'm surprised he hasn't been added already considering he's an icon of stage and screen. -- ThylekShran ( talk) 06:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems the article was good enough (or has since been made such) to be added to the main page. So, all is good. :) -- ThylekShran ( talk) 01:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I am thinking that it would be a good idea for us to compile traffic stats for each news item posted so that we can understand if we are posting things of interest to our readers, or not. As an example, Phillip Hughes garnered 420,000 views today. 2014 Ferguson unrest peaked at 133,000 daily views. Magnus Carlsen peaked at 39,000 daily views and World Chess Championship 2014 peaked at 27,000. 2014 Formula One season rated 29,000 and Lewis Hamilton had 53,000. Romanian presidential election, 2014 peaked at 18,000 and Klaus Iohannis at 48,000.
Hughes and Ferguson had long, contentious discussions, while other nominations with lower (but still respectable) numbers sailed right through. This leads me to believe that our discussions may be focusing on the wrong criteria. Wikipedia exists for the readers, not for the editors. We should promote news items that people find interesting. We can use data from http://stats.grok.se/ to evaluate whether we are doing a good job and to discover what types of stories generate the most interest. Jehochman Talk 03:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently the link for ISIS is
{{nowrap|[[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} 2014|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]}}
It should probably be changed to
{{nowrap|[[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]}}
so the year auto-updates. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 05:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I wish to put on the record that the manner in which the Garner death nomination was received was very unfortunate and I believe could drive away a potential contributor. Referring to nominations as "wrong", "hard to believe this was nominated seriously", and "absurd" does not help keep contributors here. We want to have people nominate things, I thought. Disagree with a nomination all you want(I did as well); but we should not bite the newcomers. There are ways to inform people of what is looked for in a nomination without calling them wrong or absurd. People needing to be aware of what is required is not a reason to act in a poor manner(leaving aside a learning curve) Not one of our finer moments. 331dot ( talk) 22:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks 331 for mentioning this. I would have opposed this nomination as the reaction wasn't the same as for Brown. But editors need to realize the tone they use can be problematic. WaltClip's oppose is an example of how not to bite newcomers. -- Calidum 00:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason we are {{ nowrap}}ing the entries in the Ongoing section? The list of recently featured articles on the Main Page doesn't do this, and the two should probably be consistent. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've debated with myself posting this on Jehochman's talk page rather than here, but I think it needs wider input. I've tried to characterise editors' positions fairly below, but I've pinged them all so that they are aware of the discussion and can correct the record below if I've got it wrong. If so, please accept my apologies.
There seems to be a basic disconnect between editors, or perhaps groups of editors, about what are the criteria for posting an item to WP:ITN.
On the one hand, some think that the main criterion is that an item is In The News. For instance, in current items we have @
Thryduulf: So posting an item to ITN when it is the worldwide top story in the news is not the right time? When is?
and @
Count Iblis: It is in the News but there is still no link to a Wiki article unlike in most other cases
, but by far the biggest proponent of this view seems to be @
Jehochman: with this as part of the rationale for posting an item: The opposes based on the personal opinion that crackpots with guns don't deserve our attention aren't convincing when the story, for whatever reason, is making headlines around the world.
, this in defending that posting: It's generally accepted that we post items that are widely in the news, which this one clearly is, per the comments. If a handful of editors disagree with the policy/guidelines, they can't really generate a new consensus within the confines of this discussion
, this in a discussion about an item: For good or for ill, our mission is to list articles "In the news" so people can learn about current events,
this supporting a nomination: Support when the article is updated. The item is in the news, and the article has substantial enough content to appear on the main page once it is touched up
, this in a discussion: Keep in mind that this item will be decided based on whether it is widely reported in the news, article quality, yada yada other criteria, not whether you think the item is newsworthy
to pull a few recent examples.
On the other hand, another group of editors think that the main criterion is that an item has encyclopaedic value. This is often expressed by the phrase, We are not a news ticker. In this camp, we have @
RGloucester: In my opinion, this is exactly the type of thing we should not post. It simply doesn't have encyclopaedic relevance in a wider context. WP:NOTNEWS springs to mind. I believe the purpose of ITN is to promote articles on news that has encyclopaedic relevance
, @
331dot: Please understand that being major news is not the only consideration in posting something to the ITN box on the main page, as we aren't a news ticker
, @
The Rambling Man: Wikipedia is not a news ticker, nor should it be
, and @
Masem: WP, and particularly at ITN, need to avoid being too focused on events of the now and instead focus on the events with more long-term, larger-scope impact
.
There is an existing consensus on the criteria for posting an item, expressed at WP:ITN in these words:
Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content.
There is a longer section earlier on that page about the purpose of ITN, which is often quoted, but the above quote represents the consensus on how items at ITN are to be evaluated.
I see nothing here about the breadth of news coverage an item is receiving. In light of this, I find Jechochman's statement that, If a handful of editors disagree with the policy/guidelines, they can't really generate a new consensus within the confines of this discussion,
rather disturbing, as the existing guideline in fact appears to be entirely on the side of that 'handful' of editors. There is also the existing consensus expressed in policy at
WP:NOTNEWS, which states:
While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.
This seems to me to also argue against breadth-of-coverage as a metric for assessing ITN items, and as policy our guidelines cannot override it.
On the other hand, assessing the significance of the developments described in the updated content is difficult, always subjective and hard to get perspective on when, pretty much by definition, all of the items we handle are going to have been posted in the last week. Since this criterion will always be a subjective assessment, discussions on items seem likely to descend to a 'Yes it is', 'No it isn't!' level of debate and the only methods available for an admin to decide whether to post an item or not will be either popularity (a vote) or the admin's own judgement of encyclopaedic value (ignoring the discussion altogether). Neither of these seems particularly desirable.
So what's needed here? Is the guideline out of step with reality and in need of updating? Or do some editors (and indeed admins) need reminding of what the guideline actually says and leave it at that?
Please understand that I'm not trying to stir up dissent here; I'm trying to get us all on the same page so that discussions at ITN/C are less adversarial. GoldenRing ( talk) 23:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
AND at least one of the following is also true
Another angle on this—I'm not saying better or worse—might be to ask "what Wikipedia articles of reasonable quality and importance would/might significant numbers of our readers (including casual readers and newcomers) who follow current events of significance be interested in reading?" Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If there were more nominations we could up our game. One reason borderline stuff gets posted is that there's nothing better available. Please nominate the type of articles you'd like to see posted. If you like geography, Denmark just filed a claim of sovereignty over the North Pole. [1] The article Territorial claims in the Arctic could be updated and posted. Jehochman Talk 05:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
ITN is still a good vehicle when we have an existing article on a subject and news on that changes/develops, or we have an event that we know will be documented (like elections and sporting events) that we're just waiting for the event to happen to finish it. Its events no one expects (for better or worse) that is where ITN has the largest issue, and that follows from the longer trends of issues with WP's WP:NOT#NEWS aspect. People want to race to be the first to create an article on a breaking event without establishing if the event is notable or has the permanence for an encyclopedia, and that creates a glut of articles that after a few days have no further coverage and will be forgotten for the most part. ITN needs to be a bit careful in how it selects topics, and because we are not a news ticker, we don't have to follow exactly what the news is covering nor with the timeliness they demand. We should be waiting for the article on the event to prove that it has more that can be said than just simply recounting the events, except in rare IAR cases (like I think we did with the Boston Marathon bombings). And that might mean that an event well-covered by the news cycle is something we simply ignore for ITN. -- MASEM ( t) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we might want to better define diversity. At List of continents by population we see that Asia has 4.2 billion of 7.1 people on earth. Africa as 1.0 billion and the Americas about 0.9 billion with South America exceeding North America by about 0.1, and Europe at about 0.7 billion. Our news items should roughly reflect world demographics. At the moment we have 4 Asia stories, 1 Africa, 1 North America and 1 Oceania (including ongoing items ebola and ISIS). This is just about right. If we have enough items to choose from, we should try to keep geographic balance. We should also keep topic balance: some politics/military/crime, some culture/sports, some science, some {list of other fields}. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman asked me to propose a draft of revised criteria for posting ITN items, and I'm happy to oblige. As he has shown interest in addressing the concerns mentioned, I have hope that we will be able to reform this process for the good of the encylopaedia. My proposed draft criteria is as follows:
The purpose of the In the news section of the Wikipedia main page is not to mirror the top stories reported at any given news outlet. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a breaking news ticker, and ITN nominations should keep this principle in mind. ITN is meant to serve as a showcase for good Wikipedia articles that have been updated with content that is of current encyclopaedic interest. This does not mean that new articles are excluded from ITN, but that caution should be taken in posting articles on breaking news stories. In order to decide whether an article is suitable to appear in the In the news section, the following criteria should be applied:
- Article quality
- Encyclopaedic significance
- Timeliness
As articles showcased in ITN appear on the main page of Wikipedia, they should be of a good quality, meaning that they should be comprehensive, referenced, and written in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They should be up-to-date, and should adequately illustrate the matter mentioned by a proposed ITN posting. Only a limited number of articles can appear in ITN at a given time, and as such, care should be taken to ensure that items posted have encyclopaedic significance. It is important to evaluate whether an item will have a lasting relevance in its field or context, while remembering that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, items posted must be of timely interest. Stories that are months old, or that are not featuring in the news at a given time should not be posted.
In many cases, an item's qualities in one of these areas can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in to improve the article. Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion. A successful nomination will normally go through several procedural steps before being posted to the ITN section of the Wikipedia main page.
What do you fellows think? I believe that this calls attention to the appropriate policies and guidelines, and ensures more caution in making a posting than does the present criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
With the tend in recent years for editors to spend their time slapping maintenance tags on articles, rather than improving them ("Here's a tag, somebody else can improve it"), ITN shouldn't bar articles just because they are tagged for minor issues. Best practice should be to do a quick cleanup and then remove any tags about minor issues such as "Could use more references". Most articles can, even featured articles. I recently saw a featured article that was tagged {{
lead too long}}
. One editor thought the lead was too long. Presumably we could find another editor who would say {{
lead too short}}
. As long as the article isn't tagged for serious problems, such as {{
NPOV}}
or {{
Copyvio}}
, we shouldn't disqualify.
Jehochman
Talk
15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
is beautiful and I have fixed the one you added already.
Jehochman
Talk
16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Bencherlite mentioned that it can make it hard to gauge how many items to include in ITN if the TFA column varies in length from day to day ... I'm just checking to make sure the small variations we've had so far in January have been working for you guys. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Mario Cuomo passed away two weeks ago, and Edward Brooke 10 days ago. Can we post some of the more recent Recent Deaths to replace them? I think a brief featuring of a less overwhelmingly supported candidate is better than a long listing of a candidate that has lost the public's interest. Listings at the front page definitely drive reader attention, and this does lead (generally) to article improvement. μηδείς ( talk) 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
An idea based on one of the current ITN/C's (the Croatian election), for ITN/R's where there is usually a page for the specific results (so, say the results of an election, or the results of a sporting event like the Superbowl), we could have a placeholder section "Upcoming events" to seed these no earlier more than a week earlier specifically to make sure that the article quality is highlighted and hoping to attract editors to help out so that when the event is completed, there is minimal time between the conclusion and posting. The format approach would be the same (using the ITN Candidate template), and when the event actually occurs, the nomination is simply moved from this holding section into the actual nomination queue, allowing any ongoing discussion to occur. The only thing that might not be known is a quality blurb but that's something that can be added once the event is moved from the holding section to the right date. It would not be required, obviously, but if an editor wants to get a jump to minimize time on this ITN/R events to get posting, this would help. -- MASEM ( t) 21:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I was under the distinct impression this would of been nominated on ITN/C with fervent gusto after the award ceremony took place? Can I actually take this opportunity to congratulate whoever resisted the urge to put this article forward for nomination? And on a side note, wasn't this ITN/R? Oh thank God it didn't appear. At any rate. -- Somchai Sun ( talk) 18:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there any value in these remarks? I'm trying to understand what value it adds, and why it doesn't seem to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.93.195 ( talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This nomination about congolese riots by Monopoly31121993 has been marked ready for 30 hours without admin comment or action. Can Spencer or Stephen or any other admins who pay attention here please post the nomination or explain what work still needs doing? Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 00:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently we have a clause in the RD instructions that states "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". It strikes me we pay no attention whatsoever to the "class" of the article, indeed just tonight we have R. K. Laxman posted whose article is still classified as a "Start" quality article. Now I realise we have the caveat that the article should be "satisfactorily filled out" (whatever that really means) but my question is, do we really need a reference to a specific class of article? History seems to dictate that we wholesale ignore it and therefore it is my proposal that we remove that clause altogether and just state "the article has been satisfactorily updated and has no major omissions of the person's life and effect". The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not exactly a regular at ITN, but I was under the impression that, ITN/R or not, all potential ITN items have to gain consensus to ITN/C before being posted. Unless I'm blind, 2015 AFC Asian Cup Final doesn't seem to have been taken to ITN/C at all before it was posted (although I think it's been posted in the past and I don't doubt that it would have gained consensus again). Have I missed something, or are admins now able to go ahead and post any ITN/R item they feel like? IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page before being posted. Listing here is not an automatic guarantee that an item will be posted.
ITR/R items won't be posted unless you nominate them, as the rules require a nomination, but rather
ITR/R items probably won't be posted unless you nominate them, as no one is actively looking at ITN/R-related articles. Except I did here. You'll see that the Sergio Mattarella nomination (an ITN/R event), which did receive a nomination, also didn't receive any real support (and actually received opposition) before being posted, because it was judged to be sufficiently updated. -- tariqabjotu 11:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just had a look at this entry:
What surprises me here, is that of the four terms linked, all of which have specific articles for exactly those terms, namely American football, New England Patriots, Seattle Seahawks and Super Bowl, only the first of the links in ITN actually points to that article. The "hook" part of it, Super Bowl, I can understand - the news item is specifically about that news event (although perhaps including the XLIX would not be a bad idea anyway). But for the two teams, I think the link to the season article rather than the general team article is wrong. If I click a New England Patriots link I expect to get to New England Patriots. Many people visiting the page will want to know general information about the team, not so much about their 2014 season.
I realise there is a fairly long standing "convention" regarding this, and many news items follow this sort of format, hence why I'm raising it here. Personally I think it would be better to use less piped links here, but I'm interested to hear others' views. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 15:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It takes me to a 404 error page. Is it working for anyone else? Everymorning talk 19:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a noun. I don't see how the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant can be ongoing (as a noun), so I thought I would bring it up here. Dustin (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've noticed that, for the past few weeks at least, there has been a distinct lack of coverage of US-related topics on the ITN ticker compared to years past, except for those events that are ITN/R. All I can say is: keep up the good work. -- WaltCip ( talk) 18:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no story about Europe either. So what? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Rambling_Man. Thank you. --
AmaryllisGardener
talk
22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
The Rambling Man has repeatedly acted inappropriately at WP:ITN/C. His comments have violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA several times, and are rude in general. I have several examples, all of these events having occurred in the last couple of months:
I must add that AFAIK, TRM has never apogized for any of this. The examples I've listed only go back to November 2014. I could go on and on listing his rude comments. Anyone can add to this list in a comment below. -- AmaryllisGardener talk 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC) ProposalI propose that The Rambling Man be topic banned from editing Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates because of his incivility.
|
Is there any chance of this being posted? If there's zero chance do tell it know so other people could waste time and effort on this article and not me lol. – H T D 23:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What happened to the shortened form of reporting of current events? The main reason I open this page first thing every morning is to get a brief 1 sentence (15-25 words) overview of the top 8-10 events that are happening. If I want to know more there are the associated links and I can go into more depth. But I dont need a 110 word recapping of the Dayton 500 and other events.
Also as the country of the event can be one of the primary indicators of level of relevance to me (I follow Asia Pacific) I would also like to suggest the following format
Country : 10-12 words summary
For example Bangladesh: Death toll from the weekend ferry disaster rises to 70. (AP) Australia: Entertainer Rolf Harris is stripped of his Order of Australia honours following recent convictions in the United Kingdom for indecent assault. (ABC News Australia) Egypt: Political activist is sentenced to five years in jail for violating a rule against organising political protests without permission. (Al-Arabiyah)
Just a thought. (Hopefully these comments are in the right talk section. Do move them if I am placing them astray.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.124.240 ( talk) 16:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In scanning the "In The News" section, I noticed what I believe to be a new entry, regarding Nascar, posted below the already existing entry concerning the movie Birdman.
Might I recommend not publishing new entries to "In The News" below existing entries?
It makes it harder to scan for new news items, and shows a bias in the editors opinion on what is more newsworthy. (Movies versus Nascar, which in this case, I agree on, but that's beside the point.)
331dot suggested this might be a better place to put this, so I'm copying it here.
164.58.21.70 (
talk)
18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
early in the morning of February 24, about 32ish hours later
I'm pleased to see the current geographic diversity of ITN, which makes a refreshing change to items relating to Western Europe and North America. At the time of writing, the stories on the template are connected with the following locations: Iraq, Nigeria, none (space), Ethiopia, Lesotho and the Philippines. Good work everyone! Modest Genius talk 11:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming @ David Levy: set it up, but I wanted to say publicly what a great solution to the problem of picking an image. Excellent job, and congrats on working out how to do that. Well done. -- Jayron 32 14:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is the correct venue to propose something that would affect articles for the duration that they appear on ITN? Mjroots ( talk) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I swapped the ITN image, as the version that we had was somewhat distracting (in that the cropped letters and the microphone tip made it show three odd red spots). Should this cause any issues, any admin is welcome to revert this without any consultation. — xaosflux Talk 03:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Routinely, whenever someone is nominated for recent deaths at ITNC, debate ensues about whether this person was at the top of his or her field. Given that this phrase has been used for some time, I think the second criterion for WP:ITND should be changed to say that they were "regarded as being at or near the top of his or her field with respect to importance" or something like that. Everymorning talk 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why has the helicopter crash killing 10 people been in "In the News" for many days now? It seems like a minor item. After all, thousands of people die in transportation accidents every day. Many bus accidents ( e.g.) kill more than 10 people at a time. Are the victims all that notable? -- Macrakis ( talk) 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Presently, the edit header provides a link to the ITN Nomination template page; I would suggest that maybe including the raw text of the base example of the template's doc pages so that one can simply copy-paste from the edit header to the edit box would make things just a notch simplier. (I always open in a new tab to grab it, we're not talking like it is impossible to get this, just makes life a little simpler). -- MASEM ( t) 13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a request at T:ITN_candidate to update the template so that Blurb is optional for Ongoing and Recent Death (RD) nominations. The proposed update would also include text to indicate that the nominator is requesting the item for Ongoing or RD. Please feel free to discuss this request at the template talk page (& implement the change, if so inclined). An example of where this feature could be used is here. Mamyles ( talk) 20:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds the new ITN candidates editnotice (added by Masem) annoying? Was that discussed somewhere? It is so large it occupies the whole window when I open the edit screen. Before we just had a link to {{ ITN candidate}} which I thought was fine (though admittedly I only rarely add new nominations). How about wrapping it in a collapsed box or something to make less overwhelming when all one wants to do is comment on nominations? Dragons flight ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)