Wikipedia talk:In the news
![]() | Please note: Please do not post error reports for Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.
Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Please do not write disagreements about article content here. Instead, post them to WP:CEN. Thank you. |
![]() | This talk page is for general discussions on In the news.
Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion.
|
![]() |
---|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Should we change the pictures daily?
[edit]I think so. The other main page sections do. This might include Photo RDs. If not, it may require reposting the same picture after a few days, or a different picture from the same article. It may even give us an incentive to post more articles in a timely fashion. However it happens, we seem to keep getting stuck on the last posted ones for rather long times lately. Is that what we want? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changing the image daily sounds like a great idea to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am still trying to evaluate if there is a template/bot supporting option to establish a type of image carousel for this type of thing to make thing mostly automatic.
- Changing the image is very admin heavy (verify image protection, make sure image is appropriate, change the "pictured" part of the blurb, etc) that we should try to avoid this too much. But I agree when an image is up for at least 48hr whether dye to lack of new blurbs, or blurbs without images, then exploring a new replacement image is reasonable as long as we aren't fighting for what image gets it. Masem (t) 22:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the last three hours or so, I've been trying to get the big red one from Xander Schauffele through to ERRORs. If it's OK with you, we could start working together on moving that forward. If not, totally understandable, no worries! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've looked at that one, and put it in the queue a couple of days ago, but it's very poor quality and has visible artefacts in the thumbnail. Stephen 23:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed
This file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid.
So OK, forget it, it sounds like there is a queue. Go with another? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)- "Go with another?" What one exactly? Stephen 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see any queue. I thought you could. Maybe even one where buddy doesn't look happy with the bad news? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- By "in the queue", I believe Stephen meant this edit to WP:CMP. —Cryptic 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. I was clumsily pointing out that I'd already considered that picture, but ruled it out on quality grounds. Stephen 23:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- By "in the queue", I believe Stephen meant this edit to WP:CMP. —Cryptic 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nguyễn Phú Trọng's was up for a while, but it's now been a while ago, so there's that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Images are for the topmost item if an image is available for that item. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- You no-sold my vote at the April Cantelo nom, but yeah, April Cantelo. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- But that's an RD and there's no consensus to have pictures for RDs, however many times you suggest it. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just a me thing anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, I am serious. There's just a bug going around that makes links like these look small (to me, at least). That's not urgent, but later, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- But that's an RD and there's no consensus to have pictures for RDs, however many times you suggest it. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Toumani Diabaté's is pretty cool, too. Could remind more people that koras exist. We all already know there's a chorus. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Get that discussion above properly closed with consensus in your favour and we can start picturing RDs. Then all the hand wringers can be pointed at this new consensus. Stephen 00:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I gave it my best and my best is sometimes just enough; however it goes, it was good working with you again! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Get that discussion above properly closed with consensus in your favour and we can start picturing RDs. Then all the hand wringers can be pointed at this new consensus. Stephen 00:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see any queue. I thought you could. Maybe even one where buddy doesn't look happy with the bad news? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The other queue is the commons' category related to checking the licenses of such files. that queue appears to be at least x0,000-some deep. I don't know what they are doing over there for that purpose, but that's not an en.wiki aspect. Masem (t) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Go with another?" What one exactly? Stephen 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed
- I've looked at that one, and put it in the queue a couple of days ago, but it's very poor quality and has visible artefacts in the thumbnail. Stephen 23:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the last three hours or so, I've been trying to get the big red one from Xander Schauffele through to ERRORs. If it's OK with you, we could start working together on moving that forward. If not, totally understandable, no worries! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Good idea to ensure / showcase the freshness of the homepage. Would also support cycling through the blurb AND RDs for images. No need for any change in ITNC processes. Re: the implementation, would be good to have a protected queue of images and hopefully a bot comes by and rotates the images. Ktin (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - the purpose of image changing on the main page is meant to correlate with changes in the section. If we want ITN to be more fresh, than we should focus on getting more stories on the front page. — Knightoftheswords 14:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- 10 days and counting is the amount of time that the latest picture has been stuck at ITN. This is not quality; it's embarrassingly stale. It's trivially easy to fix this problem when we have so many good RD photos currently going unused. See examples (pictured). Andrew🐉(talk) 12:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is clear consensus does not agree with you. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was easier to use one of the many available for the Paralympics, the topmost blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Add Tour de France Femmes to ITNR
[edit]As noted at ITN/C, every edition of the Tour de France Femmes has appeared at ITN since the race began in 2022, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be an entry at WP:ITNR.
- Support as proposer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support I assumed it was INTR already. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support demonstrated news coverage and wp article quality for three years running. Also good to balance with the men's Tour de France. Masem (t) 15:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support, also assumed it was ITNR already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Kcmastrpc. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support as original commenter at ITNC. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support ITNR is for articles that repeatedly demonstrate they meet ITNQUALITY and have been posted multiple times previously. The TdFF meets these criteria, having been posted all 3 years so far. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added to ITNR per the clear consensus above. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Why is Kasia Niewiadoma still up on In the news?
[edit]![Kasia Niewiadoma was posted on 20 August and still there 10 days later](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/TDFF24_Kasia_Niewiadoma.jpg/120px-TDFF24_Kasia_Niewiadoma.jpg)
![Sid has a point, "Justice will be served!"](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Sycho_Sid_point.jpg/120px-Sycho_Sid_point.jpg)
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but why is Kasia Niewiadoma still up on ITN? Her win has been up on ITN since August 20th. It's been 10 days. I don't think it's difficult to remove her, even if that means the ITN section for today (and until we find a replacement) is shorter than normal. Alexysun (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the only documented reason to remove a blurb is becuase there is not enough space due to WP:ITNBALANCE. The community has not provided any other guidance to remove "stale" items. —Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- We've also not had a lot of nominated blurbs that would be appropriate to post, either due to lack of article quality or lack of significance for front page posting. New blurbs displace older ones. Masem (t) 19:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Bagumba@Masem Well the Kasia image seems to have been removed now! Not sure what happened! Blurb is still up, but image has been changed to a pic of the Paralympic Opening ceremony. Good change! Alexysun (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- ITN image is explained at WP:ITNPICT. If the image is not from the topmost blurb, and one knows a suitable image from a higher blurb, it can be noted at WP:ERRORS for replacement. —Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Bagumba Well I know she wasn’t the top blurb for days, so it seems more like a lack of will to change it rather than no one realizing it was an “error” in conflict with “policy”. Alexysun (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well of course if there really wasn’t a picture for higher blurbs I guess she would have to stay.. Alexysun (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Bagumba Well I know she wasn’t the top blurb for days, so it seems more like a lack of will to change it rather than no one realizing it was an “error” in conflict with “policy”. Alexysun (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- ITN image is explained at WP:ITNPICT. If the image is not from the topmost blurb, and one knows a suitable image from a higher blurb, it can be noted at WP:ERRORS for replacement. —Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Bagumba@Masem Well the Kasia image seems to have been removed now! Not sure what happened! Blurb is still up, but image has been changed to a pic of the Paralympic Opening ceremony. Good change! Alexysun (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- We've also not had a lot of nominated blurbs that would be appropriate to post, either due to lack of article quality or lack of significance for front page posting. New blurbs displace older ones. Masem (t) 19:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was the usual inertia which afflicts ITN due to its obstructive culture. To keep the section as fresh as the other main page sections, there have been recent suggestions such as Changing the picture daily (above) which could easily be done by using RD photos like Sid Eudy (pictured). There's plenty of support for these ideas but the same obstructionism which prevents frequent updates also prevents the process being improved. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 112 § Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb? was stalled on objective criteria on how to determine what images to rotate in. —Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, that's just where you got hung up. I tried to explain how bottom-to-top is basically oldest-to-newest. Then the rest of us started waiting for someone uninvolved to properly/technically/finally close it and that someone didn't come. A bot set us back to the beginning, marked it as a minor edit. The obstructionists probably don't expect us to start over, but who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
... waiting for someone uninvolved to properly/technically/finally close it and that someone didn't come
: Or there's no consensus. But carry on.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)- Yeah, "no consensus", just a vast majority of respondents agreeing that the proposed idea is a good idea and we should try it. I know how these word games work. "Carrying on" within the next conveniently unspecified period will get the next proposal shot down as "too soon" and a non-zero number will maintain that since our agreement wasn't recognized by a closing admin, it "didn't happen" before and so can't possibly, everafter. This will be enough to waste even more time on cleaning out the clear and present quagmire in which people like you seem to relish staying stuck. So, "nah, it's cool". I'll wait for someone else to start, again. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The net-net is that until WP:ITNPICT and WP:ITN/A are updated with clear, objective instructions on what an admin is expected to do differently, the image process remains that same. —Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The word "net-net" means absolutely nothing to me, but I'll see how I can help on those other pages later; thanks for the clue. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The net-net is that until WP:ITNPICT and WP:ITN/A are updated with clear, objective instructions on what an admin is expected to do differently, the image process remains that same. —Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, "no consensus", just a vast majority of respondents agreeing that the proposed idea is a good idea and we should try it. I know how these word games work. "Carrying on" within the next conveniently unspecified period will get the next proposal shot down as "too soon" and a non-zero number will maintain that since our agreement wasn't recognized by a closing admin, it "didn't happen" before and so can't possibly, everafter. This will be enough to waste even more time on cleaning out the clear and present quagmire in which people like you seem to relish staying stuck. So, "nah, it's cool". I'll wait for someone else to start, again. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, that's just where you got hung up. I tried to explain how bottom-to-top is basically oldest-to-newest. Then the rest of us started waiting for someone uninvolved to properly/technically/finally close it and that someone didn't come. A bot set us back to the beginning, marked it as a minor edit. The obstructionists probably don't expect us to start over, but who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 112 § Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb? was stalled on objective criteria on how to determine what images to rotate in. —Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
General elections on ITNR
[edit]ITNR currently lists:
- The results of general elections in:
- All states on the list of sovereign states;
- European Union elections.
- Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.
as recurring items. However, in practice, whether or not something falls under ITNR due to this clause is based on a case-by-case assesment, as "general election" has many different meanings. This is clearly a sub-optimal situation, as ITNR is meant for items where there is no question of notability. I think it would be much better to make a list explicitly stating which elections have previously been considered ITNR under the "general elections" clause. Then we could remove the "general elections" clause entirely, and replace it by that list. The list would be long, but we could just make a new page (such as WP:ITNR/Elections). What are other peoples thoughts on this? Gödel2200 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- This shouldn't much matter because the key point about ITN/R is that the topics are supposed to be shoo-ins. The real issue is that it is instead used to suppress comment on controversial topics such as elections in microstates or fake elections in police states. Why can't we just discuss each case on its merits? Why do we have to be told how to vote? Andrew🐉(talk) 18:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that instead of keeping the status quo (which does not actually say which elections are ITNR), we make a list of all the elections that have consistently been placed under ITNR due to this clause. Those elections would be shoo-ins, due to the previous and consistent support for posting them. Certainly, we always discuss each nom based on its own merits, but the whole point of ITNR is to find cases where consensus is clearly in support of the nom being notable enough. It is not that we are being told how to vote, just being told that community consensus is for posting the item. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this is better and not just more bureaucracy. Most elections do get posted as ITNR, and those which do not get posted are due to quality issues. If there are concerns over the definition of "general election" that can be better defined instead of creating a list of countries. Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are right that most elections that get posted are marked under ITNR. In my mind, this is just more evidence that we should mention which elections are getting marked as ITNR. Doing that wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary; the "general elections" clause on ITNR is the only ITNR clause which does not explicitly define the items it is referring to. Trying to give a definition for "general election" won't work, because "general election" already has multiple varying definitions, depending upon what country you are in. Creating a list of elections that are considered ITNR wouldn't be bureaucratic, at least no more so than the ITNR clause which reads: "Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government..." in which you are referred to a list that is roughly the size of the list that I am suggesting to create. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- per our article on general elections (which we link to) "A general election is an electoral process to choose most or all members of an elected body, typically a legislature." As long as we're talking a national body of legislators, I think its pretty clear what ITNR refers to with that language. We shouldn't go by what any specific country calls their election, but how the election is treated by the rest of the world in such cases. Masem (t) 12:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are right that most elections that get posted are marked under ITNR. In my mind, this is just more evidence that we should mention which elections are getting marked as ITNR. Doing that wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary; the "general elections" clause on ITNR is the only ITNR clause which does not explicitly define the items it is referring to. Trying to give a definition for "general election" won't work, because "general election" already has multiple varying definitions, depending upon what country you are in. Creating a list of elections that are considered ITNR wouldn't be bureaucratic, at least no more so than the ITNR clause which reads: "Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government..." in which you are referred to a list that is roughly the size of the list that I am suggesting to create. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this is better and not just more bureaucracy. Most elections do get posted as ITNR, and those which do not get posted are due to quality issues. If there are concerns over the definition of "general election" that can be better defined instead of creating a list of countries. Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that instead of keeping the status quo (which does not actually say which elections are ITNR), we make a list of all the elections that have consistently been placed under ITNR due to this clause. Those elections would be shoo-ins, due to the previous and consistent support for posting them. Certainly, we always discuss each nom based on its own merits, but the whole point of ITNR is to find cases where consensus is clearly in support of the nom being notable enough. It is not that we are being told how to vote, just being told that community consensus is for posting the item. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is this actually a problem? I don't recall seeing "general elections" being nominated under ITNR that weren't legislative elections in one way or the other, or were being challenged with regards to their ITNR status. Usually, the discussions rather circle around whether an election is legitimate, or whether one should wait until a new PM / head of government takes power. Khuft (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is true, and my main concern isn't actually what is being nominated under the general elections clause. My main problem is really that we are linking to the General election article, without describing what we mean by a "general election". That article is of extremely poor quality, and we can't expect editors to walk away from it understanding what we are referring to by a general election. In practice, as you said, the general elections clause is used for legislative elections, so the ideal situation would be clarifying that by "general election" we mean "an electoral process to choose most or all members of a legislature", or something like that. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- So if you admit that there is no "problem" with nominations or postings, then let's just change the text of the section to clarify the meaning of "general elections". Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- 2024 French legislative election was posted, but not as an ITNR election. In some countries, the legislative election is not held on the same day as the presidential election, where the president is the actual leader of the country (examples are the aforementioned France, Indonesia, and midterm elections in the United States and the Philippines). Howard the Duck (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Probably best to avoid the phrases "the presidential election" and "the president", given that many countries do not have a position of "president". Chrisclear (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be sure, the understanding is we are limiting "general elections" to legislative elections, irrespective if the leader of the legislature is the head of government, or actually leads the country. Is that right? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Probably best to avoid the phrases "the presidential election" and "the president", given that many countries do not have a position of "president". Chrisclear (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is true, and my main concern isn't actually what is being nominated under the general elections clause. My main problem is really that we are linking to the General election article, without describing what we mean by a "general election". That article is of extremely poor quality, and we can't expect editors to walk away from it understanding what we are referring to by a general election. In practice, as you said, the general elections clause is used for legislative elections, so the ideal situation would be clarifying that by "general election" we mean "an electoral process to choose most or all members of a legislature", or something like that. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)