Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add ITN/R: The Game Awards[edit]

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

  • Now that The Game Awards have been posted for 2022, as it had been in 2020 and 2021, I think we can now have a serious discussion about adding this to ITN/R. I don't think there is any need to reinvent the wheel, so I'll just copy verbatim DecafPotato's rationale:
1– viewership of The Game Awards is much higher than things like the viewership of the Academy Awards. Last year, The Game Awards had 85 million viewers, [1] while the Academy Awards had only 10 million, [2] representing a nearly 900% increase. 2– the video game industry is indisputably one of, if not the largest entertainment industries (see: GTA V is the most profitable media product ever [3]), so it makes sense that its biggest award would have a recurring item similar to the biggest awards for music and film, and finally, 3– the Game of the Year Award gets plenty of media coverage, enough to satisfy ITN.
In my opinion, three successful postings in a row warrants ITN/R regardless of the topic, so I support this proposal as nominator. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the proposal per discussion this year. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question I may just have somehow missed it while digging through the ITN archives, but I can't seem to find the discussion/ posting of The Game Awards 2020, and I didn't see anyone link it in the discussion about this year's show over on WP:ITNC. I only found the 2021 posting (which is linked on Talk:The Game Awards 2021). Would someone mind linking the nomination or ITN post? Gestrid (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't somehow miss it in 2020—it wasn't even nominated. DecafPotato (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thought so. Just wanted to confirm. Gestrid (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support — It wasn't even discussed in 2020, so WaltCip, you might want to fix that. Regardless, I agree with the rationale (it's mine, after all) and think it should be put on ITN/R—two successive postings is good in my book, and there's no reason to believe it won't be posted again in 2023. DecafPotato (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Story showed considerable levels of opposition; ITNR should be for less controversial stories that are guaranteed to be posted every time. In addition, it receives minimal media coverage outside of gaming-focused publications. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Looking through last and this year's discussion, pretty much the exact same talking points were brought up, and it was posted both times. I suspect the same thing would happen in next year's discussion, too. Gestrid (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Still very easy to imagine for this TV show to decrease in popularity significantly in a few years. Too soon. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I am even surprised someone nominated it for ITN.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Um... Who set this up as an RFC? Was that necessary? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral As I stated earlier in the month, I think there should be some level of video game representation in ITN/R due to the proliferation and mainstreaming of the industry; however, I still hold some skepticism of TGA and whether it is the right one to focus on. Curbon7 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Too soon / oppose. We literally just had a long discussion about this, which isn't even mentioned by the OP. Since then, the award was posted this year through ITN/C, but there was substantial opposition as well, so it's clearly controversial. Consensus in the recent ITNR discussion was that the awards would need to be posted through ITN/C several times before considering them for ITNR - most commenters were asking for 3 or 4 years of consecutive posting. We're now at two, and they were both heavily debated. So try again next year, if it passes ITN/C without a massive debate. Modest Genius talk 14:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was directly mentioned by OP--the rationale is literally the same, because the previous discussion concluded with a "nominate it this year and then reassess", and given it got posted this year, we are reassessing. I don't really see how the last discussion should be treated as a previous discussion that ended in a no, this is a continuation of the discussion as directly requested by the closure of that last discussion.~~ DecafPotato (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Too soon I think. There has been significant opposition, and I'm not ready to give ITN/R status to something that looks to me rather like a glorified trade show without much independent coverage in the press.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not only there is significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources [1][2][3][4], but there is analysis of awards in highly reliable source [5] Kirill C1 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IGN is a gaming site and we cannot use Forbes collaborators (which Paul Tassi is) the others are reliable. Masem (t) 20:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Didn't we just have this discussion. Come back in a few years. If it is posted uncontroversially for several years, then we can start to talk. The prior discussion, closed a few weeks ago, noted it had only been posted once. It was narrowly posted a second time. This does clearly not have the automatic support that ITNR implies. ITNR is for stuff that is basically an automatic posting every year (assuming article quality). I would not call the consensus shown just a few days ago to be "automatic posting". --Jayron32 18:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See above for the "just had this discussion" response, the previous discussion ended with an agreement from both sides to return to the subject after it was put up at ITNC this year, and now we are here. As for the "ITNR if for stuff with automatic support", no? Plenty of things at ITNR are contested, like sports championships or other award shows (some of which are smaller than the Game Awards both in terms of popularity and industry significance). But those still have majority support, which the Game Awards has (the 2022 nom had 25 !votes to support and 10 to oppose, I wouldn't call that "narrow"). What ITNR means for an item, to me at least, is that "this item has a majority in favor of posting it, and its nature as a recurring event means that new arguments are unlikely to be brought up to change that, so let's just make everyone's lives easier by only focusing on article quality", just as RDs were simplified to focus only on article quality. DecafPotato (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since you obviously didn't read what I said in the last one, let me quote it to you verbatim. "I think that adding something to ITNR should only follow several (3-4 years) of posting on ITN with minimal opposition. Placing things on ITNR to bypass discussion is putting the cart before the horse." I never said that it should be on ITNR after it passed ITNC this year. What I said was that it needed to pass several years with minimal opposition. This is because ITNR is supposed to be for items for which significance would be functionally unanimous every year. It is NOT supposed to be a means by which to silence opposition. Insofar as significant opposition exists, and it did this year, then this event does not pass that threshold. --Jayron32 16:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I said "there was agreement" to revisit the nom if/when it was posted this year because that's what the majority of people said + how it was closed. That was hyperbole though, and I didn't mean to imply that you said that or that there was consensus to put it on ITNR after this year--just pointing out that the "just have this discussion" seemed, to me at least, to state that it was being immediately proposed after being rejected, when that discussion had a pretty clear consensus to revisit the item after this year, though with no real majority opinion one way or another. DecafPotato (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose Indeed, ITN/R is like a reverse SNOW: there is no need to have the discussion because the outcome is obvious. Now, that does not apply to many of the items there now because ITN/R is hopelessly broken. But that is the standard. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DecafPotato: The standard for ITNR is much higher than a bare majority of support; that kind of support is open to the whims of who shows up that day. ITNR is designed for the stuff for which one could not imagine any serious opposition ever. This clearly does not meet that standard. --Jayron32 18:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know many ITNR items a lot of people would've opposed to... Howard the Duck (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Me too, so I don't think Jayron32's assessment is entirely accurate. In fact we did recently have to prune ITN/R of a few items where it wasn't clear that they met the significance standard anymore even if nominated in good faith. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    HtD: You are so close to getting the point. --Jayron32 03:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I see no reason to wait 3 or 4 years. 2 is fine. Also: it's the Oscars of the video game industry, which is now bigger than Hollywood. Esports is starting to eclipse sports in dollars and audience. It's a 21st century thing. Welcome to the future. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose two instances of posting with narrow consensuses is nowhere near a demonstration of suitability for ITNR. Baring occasional exceptions, my standards are two instances posted with (very nearly) unanimous consensuses, 3-4 instances with clear consensuses or 5-6 instances of weaker consensuses. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Opposecan't believe it was even considered worth an ITN. Learned of the Game Awards from the ITN post, never heard of it before. Look at the google searches. Not a single large news outlet pops up in the first two pages of a google search. Facebook, twitter, instagram...Besides it was just opposed before. Wait until it is in the news in the big outlets and come back.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Famous Deaths in 2022 at ITN[edit]

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

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

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

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table[edit]

Subject Views in 2022 (million) Sex ITN Nationality Grade Vital level
Elizabeth II 43.57 F blurb UK/Commonwealth FA 4
Bob Saget 9.15 M RD US C
Pelé 8.19 M blurb Brazil GA 4
Betty White 8.06 F blurb US B 5
Taylor Hawkins 7.76 M RD US C
Ray Liotta 7.68 M RD US C
Olivia Newton-John 7.49 F RD Australia/UK B 5
Shinzo Abe 5.82 M blurb Japan B 5
Meat Loaf 5.68 M snub US C 5
Mikhail Gorbachev 5.47 M blurb Soviet Union/Russia GA 4
Kirstie Alley 5.46 F RD US C
Lata Mangeshkar 5.44 F blurb India B 4
Robbie Coltrane 4.53 M RD UK C
James Caan 4.49 M RD US C 5
Ivana Trump 4.43 F RD Czech/US B
Angela Lansbury 4.29 F RD UK/US GA
Sidney Poitier 4.28 M RD then blurb Bahamas/US C 4
Shane Warne 4.09 M blurb Australia C 4
Gilbert Gottfried 4.05 M snub US C
William Hurt 3.99 M RD US C 5
Coolio 3.81 M RD US B
Jerry Lee Lewis 3.49 M snub US C 5
Christine McVie 3.41 F RD UK B
Loretta Lynn 3.14 F RD US B 5
Bill Russell 2.93 M RD US FA 5
Pope Benedict XVI 2.58 M blurb Germany/Vatican B 5
Barbara Walters 2.48 F RD US B 5
Irene Cara 2.09 F snub US Start
Madeleine Albright 1.86 F RD US B
Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan 1.68 M blurb UAE C 5
Franco Harris 1.66 M RD US C
Vivienne Westwood 1.62 F RD UK C 5
Ayman al-Zawahiri 1.55 M blurb Egypt/al-Qaeda B 5
Fred Ward 1.43 M snub US Start
Cyrus Mistry 1.43 M snub India C
Nichelle Nichols 1.30 F RD US B 5
Jiang Zemin 1.28 M blurb PRC C 5
Ivan Reitman 1.26 M snub Czech/Canada C
John Aniston 1.25 M snub Greece/US Start
Peter Bogdanovich 1.23 M RD US C 5
Dennis Waterman 1.19 M RD UK Start
Jean-Luc Godard 1.13 M blurb France/Switzerland B 4
Kane Tanaka 1.08 F RD Japan C
Bernard Cribbins 0.95 M RD UK C
Vangelis 0.94 M RD Greece B 5
Sally Kellerman 0.88 F RD US C
Mino Raiola 0.86 M RD Netherlands/Italy C
Grant Wahl 0.84 M RD US Start
Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi 0.79 M blurb Iraq/Islamic State C
Thích Nhất Hạnh 0.75 M blurb Vietnam A 5
Leslie Phillips 0.73 M RD UK Start
Vladimir Zhirinovsky 0.72 M RD Soviet Union/Kazakhstan/Russia B
Shireen Abu Akleh 0.70 F RD Palestine/US B
Hilary Mantel 0.58 F RD UK B 5
Guy Lafleur 0.52 M RD Canada B 5
P. J. O'Rourke 0.51 M RD US C
Bobby Rydell 0.51 M RD US C
Orrin Hatch 0.50 M RD US C 5
Darya Dugina 0.50 F RD Russia Start
Antonio Inoki 0.47 M snub Japan C 5
Fidel V. Ramos 0.46 M snub Philippines C 5
Man of the Hole 0.45 M RD then blurb Tanaru GA
Issey Miyake 0.44 M RD Japan Start
Ken Starr 0.41 M RD US B 5
Barry Cryer 0.40 M RD UK C
Monica Vitti 0.39 F RD Italy C 5
Leonid Kravchuk 0.38 M RD Poland/Soviet Union/Ukraine B 5
Luc Montagnier 0.31 M snub France C 5
Lester Piggott 0.30 M RD UK C 5
Raymond Briggs 0.30 M RD UK C
Irene Papas 0.29 F RD Greece GA
Gaylord Perry 0.29 M RD US B
Mwai Kibaki 0.29 M RD Kenya B
José Eduardo dos Santos 0.27 M blurb Angola Start 5
Valeri Polyakov 0.25 M RD Soviet Union/Russia GA 5
James Lovelock 0.23 M RD UK B 5
Richard Leakey 0.21 M RD Kenya C 5
Freddy Rincón 0.20 M snub Columbia Start
Bernard Shaw (journalist) 0.18 M RD US Start
Neal Adams 0.16 M RD US B
John Bird (actor) 0.14 M snub UK Start
Muhammad Rafiq Tarar 0.14 M RD Pakistan Start
Luis Echeverría 0.14 M RD Mexico C 5
Frank Drake 0.10 M RD US Start
Gian Piero Ventrone 0.10 M RD Italy Start
David Cox (statistician) 0.07 M RD UK Start
George Crumb 0.07 M RD US C
Bujar Nishani 0.07 M RD Albania Start
Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam 0.07 M RD Malaysia C
Stanislav Shushkevich 0.07 M snub Soviet Union/Belarus Start
Cristina Calderón 0.06 F RD Chile Start
Olga Kachura 0.05 F snub Soviet Union/Ukraine Start
Autherine Lucy 0.04 F snub US Start

Discussion[edit]

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

Albright, Poitier and Russell all merited a blurb if not for the instinctive bias against featuring anything American at ITN. nableezy - 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Hindsight bias. But we are also not obligated to give everyone who "deserves" a blurb a blurb. Basically we put them up when we feel like it. As to the suggestion for a blurb for everyone, If a reader wants to see all the recent deaths they click on the recent deaths link and there is the list you just described and if the reader has popups enabled, they can see the article lead and top picture from each bio page by just hovering over the link. It might seem that women get less blurbs. From the list 3 out of 16 women got a blurb (18%) and 12 out of 43 men got a blurb (28%). However, if you only consider the ones over 4 million views, it's 3 out of 7 women (42%) vs 4 out of 10 men (40%). So, it might seem we are doing a good job. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Trending topics. My prelim views are that we do not need be making any major changes to WP:ITN or WP:ITNRD based on the above data. However, I think this might be time to introduce a trending topics section either as a part of the WP:ITN box or outside of that. It does reflect quite poor if our mainpage after all these years is still fairly static in its content refresh capability and is not dynamic i.e. tailored either based on audience interest (trending topics), geographic interest (trending near you), or personalized reccos (tailored for you). Trending topics reflects the lowest level of personalization but is still dynamic, whereas tailored for you is the highest level of personalization, while trending near you is in between. This can either be text-based links or better still, images. Requires some amount of creative thinking and might not be in the remit of this group which is largely in a maintenance and operations mode. Ktin (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is important for us to consider the disparate impact of our practices as to what gets posted. Look at the opposition for Bill Russell[6] and compare to Lata Mangeshkar[7]. All those votes that torpedoed BR would equally apply to LM but are conspicuously absent. Why? GreatCaesarsGhost 22:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can not speak for the entirety of the community, but I think it could have to do with the individual's note amongst the editing community. Seeing as we are discussing the English language page and Russell was American, we can assume a large number of American responses. I did not vote on Russell's nom, but I know enough about Russell to the point where I considered voting. I would probably have voted "Oppose" at the time. Before the nom for Lata Mangeshkar, however, I did not know of her or her impact, so I chose to abstain from the start. While India has a solid English-speaking population, it's very possible that a higher percentage of the votes were from those who are not Indian, and the non-domestic vote is likely to have a large impact on the posting of a nom because if a person is not known very well internationally, it's not hard to believe that the person's impact may have been narrow. It stands to reason that Mangeshkar may have been more brpadly impactful in large part because of her field (Sportspeople may be well known, but basketball is not nearly as notable as several other sports - I think Shane Warne receiving a blurb and Russell not would perhaps be a good example of this). Just my two cents. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basketball vs cricket
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • You think cricket is more "notable" than basketball? Its played by members of the commonwealth and basically nobody else. nableezy - 03:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the kind of really dumb, pointless comment that leads to discussions going right off the rails. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As opposed to the population of countries that field a basketball team every olympics? Including pretty much all of the commonwealth? nableezy - 03:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The largest number of countries that have fielded a basketball team at an Olympics is 24. That's less than half of the Commonwealth, even if they did enter, which they don't. I don't know what Olympics you're watching. That's also one tournament every four years. Popularity, notability, as it is statistically measured uses the health of the regular domestic leagues and number of fans, things like that. Team GB don't usually enter a football team at the Olympics, does that mean that football is not played in the UK? Get off it. Kingsif (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are 213 mens basketball national teams. Those that qualify for games are a fraction. Sort of like the fraction that qualifies for the World Cup. Get off it indeed. nableezy - 04:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You literally said most of the Commonwealth fields a basketball team at every Olympics. That is literally your comment. I also noted that this is not relevant in football myself, so it does your 'argument' no good to bring that up lol, coming back with NBA vs IPL stats would have been more useful for you. Kingsif (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add qualifiers if you feel like it. My point was that basketball is much more widely played around the world. Outside of one self-important club of nations at least. nableezy - 04:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cricket is the second-biggest sport in the world only after association football. As you also note, the vast majority of the people playing cricket are English speakers, and this is English Wikipedia. Basketball is still a popular sport, it comes in third, but of course, besides the US, it's most popular in Spain, the Philippines, China, and Russia. Not English. This is all tangential, I suppose, that death blurbs are subjective. But your random interjection is an example of a kind of 'subjective' argument that comes up at such ITNCs that are really just falsehoods or at least bias-based opinions stated as facts. Kingsif (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well over half of the population that watches or plays cricket is Asian, not English speakers. nableezy - 04:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stupid, ignorant comment. Stop it now. You're not helping your case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im sorry, what? Somebody said the vast majority of the people playing cricket are English speakers. That is false. And I said it is false. The number of times youve said something stupid and ignorant that Ive ignored is not going to increase this one time, but Im sure it will again rise in the near future. You dont need to respond to me. nableezy - 04:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
200 million people in India speak English, around 15%. It's 49% of Pakistan. (per our articles) Like, the sharing of English was a big part of the Commonwealth. Of course, you are choosing to ignore that the majority of people watching and playing basketball are Asian, too, from non-English nations. Kingsif (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I dont ignore that, I just thought it was funny when saying your random interjection is an example of a kind of 'subjective' argument that comes up at such ITNCs that are really just falsehoods you provide a falsehood as a random interjection. nableezy - 04:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The vast majority of people playing cricket speaking English is not a falsehood, you know apparently nothing about cricket and the Commonwealth, I invite you to get off it. Kingsif (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC) (Speaking of, I only responded in the first place, with a non-random interjection mind, to point out that comments like your original one are the kind of falsehoods or bias stuff presented as fact that we want to avoid when trying to have discussions of death blurbs at ITNC. I may disagree with HiLo at times, but they see it and said it, too. How you doubled down on your ignorance is further proof of that point. Kingsif (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Like most people around the world, you are right I dont care at all about cricket. nableezy - 04:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More people around the world care about cricket than basketball. You need say no more, and please don't. Kingsif (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly not among readers of the English Wikipedia based on readership volume by country. nableezy - 04:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't even know where to start with this. India actually makes up a big chunk of the non-American English Wikipedia readers. I've helped curate the top 25 for over 2 years and, outside of players dying, can tell you cricket has featured and basketball hasn't in that time; I also know from this that wrestling, by readership, is far more popular than any other sport, which doesn't reflect the world (and likely main page readers) at large, so it's irrelevant. Like, at least three angles of you're just ignorant and digging. Kingsif (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See here there are stats. US readers account for 40% of page views. Thats more than the entire commonwealth combined. But Im the ignorant one here. nableezy - 04:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You see where I said of the non-American when referring to English Wikipedia readership? 👍🏼 Kingsif (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I do. You see where I said readers of the English Wikipedia but not removing the largest chunk from that? It was argued that 2.5 billion people of the commonwealth signifies the importance of the topic of cricket to the English Wikipedia. But somehow the fact that this 2.5B still makes up a smaller portion of views than the US doesnt matter to that argument. Anyway, I wouldnt have even voted against the Aussie cricketeer lol, I wouldnt have cared at all. But the idea that basketball is somehow only played in the US or that it is somehow "less notable" than cricket is stupid. And so was this vote by the person who now says they have no way of objectively judging it. nableezy - 04:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made my comment hoping that you hadn't been suggesting that all Americans (or, at least, the ones that read Wikipedia) care about basketball and none of them care about cricket (because, as I said which you have ignored, viewership stats coming from a certain nation means absolutely nothing in relation to what sport articles get read), but here you say you were indeed asserting that 40% readers of readers being American means more readers care about basketball than cricket... and then go on to say that you don't like the idea of basketball being primarily American. You assert the idea that cricket is more popular than basketball is stupid, despite fan and playing stats saying so.
And, you say you wouldn't have cared at all about the cricket blurb... but you cared enough here to add an off-topic comment that phrased your opinion as fact, and look where we are - I bring this up not to discredit you; I may have been unclear in my first reply about my point being that death blurbs are subjective but such comments like yours was are unhelpful and so we should discourage them or at least be aware of them when assessing !vote arguments in ITNC discussions of death blurbs. But I'm sure you'll agree this thread has proven the point I left implicit (not to draw out the thread, though I will admit there came a point I continued it for this purpose). So, thanks, I think. Kingsif (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course Im not suggesting that. About Some 30,000 whole people watch or play cricket in the US. Ill let you work out the math compared to the number who watch or play basketball as to why that would lead one to believe that the vast majority of American readers dont care about cricket, while a great deal many more do care about basketball. And please dont put words in my mouth. I said the idea that cricket is more notable is stupid. Also the idea that it is likely more popular among en.WP readers. Given that the majority of those come from countries that have similar sub-1 percent viewership who cares about cricket. nableezy - 05:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Skip a few comments back to the one I didn't even know where to start. You've exclusively focused on the first angle, and then come out with assumptions that are disproved by the other two. Cricket makes the top 25 pageviews, basketball doesn't. Wrestling outranks them both. It really doesn't matter where the viewers come from as to what sport articles they read. Like, it really doesn't. (This doesn't excuse you now asserting that most readers of English Wikipedia are from countries that don't care about cricket when you have the stats and know the English-speaking, cricket-loving Commonwealth makes up a lot of readership. You really can't help coming up with bullshit, can you?) Kingsif (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bullshit remains all yours. Im the one that brought the stats that show that the majority of page views on the English Wikipedia is from non Commonwealth countries. Unlike when you say most, when I say most I mean more than half. Like most of the commonwealth's population speaks English as a second, or even more, as a third language. Or most of the English Wikipedia's readership come from countries with minimal cricket viewership. So, since you cant help but bullshit about what Ive said, and now you cant help but bullshit about stats that I provide. heres the link again. See how just among the top 25 countries that over 56% of the total views is from non commonwealth countries. So kindly stop bullshitting. The wrestling bit is interesting, but not in the way you think. It is interesting in that it shows a rabid fanbase of a minority of viewers can skew page views on any one topic. But the country level stats are a bit harder to skew. But please, for the love of anything you hold holy, read the definition of "most" as you seem to have misused it several times so far. nableezy - 06:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started by identifying the deaths that got blurbs in 2022. I then looked at other high-profile RDs during the year that might have been considered for blurbing. I then consulted the media to see who they were putting in their summaries of the year's deaths such as the BBC's Notable deaths 2022 to check for major figures that I might have missed. Most major news media have such a summary so it might be interesting to collate them and see who they agree on but that would be quite a bit of work. Such sources, like the views statistic, are evidence. That's what we're supposed to do at Wikipedia – work from evidence and sources rather than just promoting our personal opinions. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But another peson may choose another famous people. It is worth to consider only those who were proposed for blurb. Or to mention all who were proposed for RD. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I tend to agree with the general consensus here in saying that I don't feel like there is a big issue with ITN at the moment. The idea of a section for deaths is interesting, but I think Deaths in 2023 is sufficient enough for doing what such a section does. I think Ktin's "Trending Topics" section would be interesting though, but that should be a separate discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blurbs are not an award we grant to people for being "important enough". They are a way to convey information to readers. If all we have to say about someone is that they died without anything further noteworthy about the death itself, it doesn't need a blurb. That's what RD is for, the routine reporting of deaths that need no further explanation. If a death is unusual or has some other noteworthy aspects or knock-on effects from it (such as an assassination, unusual accidental death, death of a sitting world leader that causes a succession of a new world leader, a large and noteworthy reaction to deaths, such as well-covered memorial services, etc. This list is non-exhaustive, mind you), then it is something a blurb is needed to explain, we should have a blurb for that. But if all we need to say is "so-and-so died", then they don't need a blurb. Otherwise, we're treating a blurb like a "you won at life!" award, and that's not what they are. We should be in the position of deciding what people we just kinda feel like are important enough. If you want to propose a blurb, propose something additional about the death itself that needs note. --Jayron32 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok then why are Pele and Benedict blurbed on the front page right now? Why was Queen Elizabeth blurbed? nableezy - 03:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Bingo. Curbon7 (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To reply to both, the simple answer is because enough people decided so. Wikipedia is based on collaboration and ITN uses it, too. And even based on Jayron's comment, well, look Queen Elizabeth was a sitting world leader. So, check. A Pope emeritus is technically a sitting world leader. Kinda check. Both of them and Pele have massively-covered memorials. Heck, the level of news coverage just of the queues to see the three of them lying in state could approach ITN-worthy. What Jayron maybe didn't explain too well in the later parts of their comment is the generally-agreed "a death where the death itself is a news story worthy of ITN, can get a blurb". Note 'can', it's still up for debate. And that's simply the case with Pele, Benedict, and Elizabeth, on top of being significant people. Kingsif (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, pope emeritus is most definitely not a sitting world leader. They are a former world leader. The problem with the enough people decided so answer is the systemic bias. The bias that any number of people exhibit for nearly any blurb for an American. Bill Russell was a civil right icon, awarded his nations highest civilian honor, and the greatest champion in the history of American sport. And the opposes were "no - american". nableezy - 04:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Skipping to the important part - this got long-ish. Ok, I'd be interested in how many RDs that are proposed for blurbs are Americans, and how many RDs proposed for blurbs are not Americans, sitting world leaders not included, of course.
I advocated for Betty White on the basis that her influence on early television production, as well as such an enduring career, meant that this being all in one country did not matter. I could not say the same for Barbara Walters, who has equals in many nations and so is not outstanding enough, imo, to meet the 'person was super important' criteria.
In the same way, being (maybe) your nation's best sportsperson means you are among at least a couple hundred people. I doubt that the best sportsperson from ... Mali ... dying gets proposed for a blurb. But Americans often are; the number of !opposes based on locale, then, are kinda just countering the pro-American bias when it comes to proposing RDs for blurbs. The reasons should be more eloquent than what you write, but I'd safely say that a "no - american" !vote can be assumed to be meaning "this blurb was clearly suggested just because they were American, but they have no international notability, their international counterparts would never be proposed for a blurb, so just no".
You also have to remember that !votes are not counted, but judged on the merit of the arguments. That should counter any bias you think is there, because such !votes should be written off. Kingsif (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was my feeling - there is a sense of pro-American bias that people feel the need to counter, even if the nom is legit. They don't do that for other countries, which results in an anti-American bias in what gets posted. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She was probably blurbed on Wikipedia on every language. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were 15 blurbs during the year and I reckon only two cases fit Jayron32's theory. One was the Queen, where there was a huge amount of pomp and ceremony. And the other was Shinzo Abe, who was assassinated. In all the other cases, they were just blurbed for having been important figures in their day at the "top of their field". Andrew🐉(talk) 12:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My concerns in this area tend to centre around the really dumb comments sometimes seen, such as Americans describing cricket as a minor sport (yes, it has happened), and the problem with American sports stars playing sports that are only played in the USA. (Sometimes plus Canada.) Wikipedia and its editing community are global. 95% of the world's population is not American, and they tend to know nothing about American football. It's incredibly hard to make rules that will get a blurb for an American such as Bill Russell, even if he is the world's greatest athlete. How can a non-American objectively judge such a thing? Should they be banned from commenting? HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Equally, how could an American objectively judge it? Nobody is expected to be objective, it's which subjective arguments that are more convincing. Kingsif (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about dumb comments like assuming because one hasn't heard of it in their country, that therefore they must not be famous or notable. I think we should strike those types of comments too. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The absence of dumb comments doesn't guarantee smart thoughts being behind !votes. —Bagumba (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is also a good point. How many times have we seen "Oppose - Not notable" and "Support - Notable" be given equal weight in a discussion, regardless of the rationale behind them? Perhaps less is actually more. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, there's crap !votes. Has there been a case where "properly" discounted !votes would have changed the outcome? —Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do apologize for opening that can of worms. I come back after a few days and it appears suddenly I had started some massive and useless debate. Your point stands though, but I don't think it's a big issue given the fact that blurb decisions are not explicitly democratic. I think the Admins do a good job of keeping on top of this. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We respect you Andrew, but for anything about ITN that gets questioned, you always refer to viewership stats. As was noted a few times when Vera Lynn didn't get a blurb, that isn't a solid metric. Indeed, nothing really is a metric. RD was introduced when there was too much fighting over what death news stories should get blurbed, and that issue obviously shows up every time we consider a blurb. We debate for a reason - no set of numbers or any kind of 'do they fit in this box' has made deciding which deaths get blurbed easier any time they've been proposed - and that seems to be the best we have. I'm not even sure if your proposal is stats-related or you just wanted to add the table - are you trying to suggest that the selection of blurbs is so unrepresentative of the viewership that your new idea is better? Even though you know stats (or anything) don't relate to blurbworthiness. So, er no change. Kingsif (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Of course there is WP:BIAS. But blurbs are posted based off of consensus. While one might get a few regular ITN contributors to change their perspective, it might be more effective to encourage new participants and possibly broaden the diversity of participants.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like this table. I think this is a useful angle to view this information from. Of course the viewership stats are only a shorthand for one of the aspects that matter to us when blurbing a death (it does not relate to the quality of the article, for example). It feels like a fine way to order this list, tho. Either way, my main conclusion from this list is that we have a fairly good variety of blurbed deaths, and we're definitely not blurbing too many in a year, currently. I can definitely tell from the discussion that there's still a lot of disagreement on what deaths and whether deaths alone merit a blurb. Regardless, we can be proud of ourselves for directing our readership to so many high-quality articles about various high-impact individuals :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The easiest thing to do, honestly, would be to get rid of death blurbs except for those where the death (suicide, dying at a young age, etc.) is the main story. I know someone has suggested it before, and I scorned it at the time but only because that doesn't reflect our current policy. But making that change would avoid making ITN, which is already a popularity contest at heart, even more of a popularity contest. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You seem to be proposing to strike the "Major figures" criteria from WP:ITNRD. What about the "Death as the main story" part, specifically where it allows for deaths with major stories about memorial services or international reactions? —Bagumba (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The difficulty I find with that is it may often take time for memorial services to take place - I can remember one instance in which a person denied a blurb had a "Death of..." article created about them, but it was too late from ITN's point of view since the item had already rolled past the 7-day cycle. As far as international reactions, that seems like a subjective category too. I could see a situation where someone says "Support blurb, the Sydney Morning Herald and BBC reported on their death, and those are international reactions", and I don't think that's the intent of that phrase. I'd like something a bit more specific about what would meet the criterion for widespread international reactions so that we don't continue to have arguments. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, the Sydney Morning Herald posting an Associated Press news wire story is probably not the "international reaction" we were expecting. —Bagumba (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a further nuisance, I remember that both Chris Cornell and Chester Bennington died at a young age of suicide, but although the death was the main story, the issue became confused due to many people arguing they did not merit blurbs because they weren't famous/transformative enough. That crowd ended up winning out, and they just ended up as RDs. So that's another instance where the "major figures" criteria has caused problems. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do think such a change would be a shame, as this is an excellent type of article to feature. I look at this table and see a lovely list of a diversity of topics we brought to the forefront. If we had a more detailed recent-deaths section as suggested above too, I suppose that would be alright. I'd almost suggest the alternative of blurbing every recent death that has a GA+ article! But I recognize my feelings on this don't really match other editors here at all.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd be in favor of blurbing GAs/FAs too. In truth, I think we should be doing that anyway, and originally that was intended by WP:ITNCRIT, but enough people felt differently about that to where ITN's guidelines actually had to be modified to reflect current practice. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some GAs only undergo a cursory review, or were reviewed years ago before its quality fell. Perhaps less so with FAs, though WP:FAR does exist for a reason too. —Bagumba (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's true, but I wouldn't automatically question the status of a GAFA when it comes up for nomination in one of our different mechanisms, unless the content of the article clearly shows some red flags. It's a bit like nominating an article for deletion just because it's a recent deaths candidate. While technically doable and would certainly stop the RD process, it's only something you do when it's absolutely necessary. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's just due diligence on FA/GAs, and not blindly signing off. —Bagumba (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For what it's worth also, I think the fact that the Americans have an outsize number of RDs but only one death blurb compared to other nations shows that the system is working.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My stance:
  • We do not nor should not use popularity or fame as a serious consideration for posting blurbs. For this reason alone, I can expect some RDs to have more views after their posting than some blurbs.
  • Besides the normal quality we'd expect at minimum for a RD, a blurb contender should be above and beyond that. Not expecting FA or GA quality, but far better than, say, C-class.
  • The article should contain a clear section like "Legacy" or "Impact" that describes why the person is being highlighted for a blurb. Not just a list of awards, but actual prose or the like that helps to make it a no-brainer for posting. Having this requirement is a better defined version of things like "major leader" or "transformative figure" as this is the put-up-or-shut-up for those that want a blurb posted. If you can't have a strong Legacy/Impact section, then maybe a blurb is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 13:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, in that table, if you're making the case about views, you may want to normalize that to views per month or day. Eg the Pope's ratio is going to be far higher than most others, while someone that died early in the year will have a long-tail. It may be better representative. --Masem (t) 13:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's usually a big spike when someone dies and that's usually quite tight. See the all-time views for Bob Saget, for example.
    There are some celebrities who regularly spike and/or have high background traffic and the Queen is a good example. But even in her case, the death spike was quite pronounced and outstanding, as compared with the background traffic. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Based on this discussion, I've started compiling some statistics regarding death blurbs in 2022. Between January and April there were 24 nominations were one or more editors suggested or supported a blurb. 20 were males, only 4 were for females. 8 were American (plus 1 Bahamian-American), 2 were Kenyan and the rest were unique. Five blurbs were posted - one each of Australian, Bahamian-American, Iraqi, Japanese (the only female) and Vietnamese. I'll post a full set of statistics and more detail when I've completed the year (probably tomorrow or Thursday). I am intentionally not considering page views. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update[edit]

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

I think another major factor here that hasn't been mentioned much is whether a person is well known beyond the borders of one country (maybe two countries in the case of ice hockey players). Bill Russell was effectively unknown outside his own country. As an Australian, I think a handful of Australian deaths last year were of people as equally successful in their fields as Russell, but only within Australia. Can such a person ever get a blurb? HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is demonstrably false. nableezy - 23:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked a question. How can a question be false? HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also said Bill Russell was effectively unknown outside his own country. That is demonstrably false. nableezy - 00:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please demonstrate it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 600k results for his name in Chinese should demonstrate that. Or the fact that his passing was covered in pretty much every national news source out there. Including Australia. nableezy - 01:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said "effectively". 600,000, compared with the Chinese population, is negligible. The Australian news articles tells us how excited Americans were at the time. No mention at all of any Australian response. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As opposed to say 6,450 results for one Shane Warne. nableezy - 05:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google results are tailored by Google for YOU, based on what Goggle thinks YOU are interested in. They are of no use whatsoever for discussions like this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lol, yes google is aware of my deep and abiding love and understanding of the Chinese language, so much so that they show me 100x the results for somebody you think is "effectively unknown outside of his own country" compared to that monumentally influential person that was mourned across the world. That right there, thats the dumbest thing youve said this week. nableezy - 07:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the relevance of Google results? There's no specific or general metric of significance that would be measured by number of Google results. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its relevant if somebody is claiming that somebody like Bill Russell is basically unknown outside of the US. Now HiLo48 may be ignorant about who he was, but many people outside of the US were not quite that ignorant. nableezy - 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are lying about what I wrote. You can't have much of a case if you feel you need to do that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Im lying by replacing "effectively" with "basically". You know what a synonym is? You said effectively unknown outside of America. And that isnt even the dumbest thing youve written this week! nableezy - 07:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...I think a handful of Australian deaths last year were of people as equally successful in their fields as Russell, but only within Australia. Can such a person ever get a blurb?: WP:ITNC says:

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

Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WTF? That was NOT what I was doing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You asked if such a person can get a blurb. I merely wrote what ITNC says. —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ITNC says lots of things, most of it, INCLUDING THAT, irrelevant to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, to reiterate what HiLo was saying here, I would refer you to the hidden discussion above that's more or less Warne versus Russell. In this case you could argue that Warne is more known outside of his country (as in a higher percentage of those who know of him are not Australian versus Australian) than Russell. This sort of thing clearly impacts a discussion regarding his notability. An Australian person is more likely to know who Warne is, just like an American is more likely to know who Russell is. That impacts how a person is voted on. It's hard to imagine someone gettinga death blurb if they are, for the most part, known only domestically. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely not a scientific metric, but Russell has a Wikipedia article in 55 languages, while Warne has in 38. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. I'm certainly not attempting to discount your findings, but I question whether it really means that Bill Russell is popular in Armenia or Turkey, or if cross-Wiki presence could be explained by the USA having emigrants/citizens who are fluent in more languages as compared to Australia. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely not an estimate based from the scientific method, but the chances of that happening are between 0% and 100%. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm surprised to see a level 4 "Vital article" (Sidney Poitier) listed here without a blurb. Of course the "Vital article" project is of pretty marginal meaning and certainly controversial (please don't argue about it here), but I'm interested in learning more how his RD discussion played out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrew Davidson @Maplestrip: Poitier did, in fact, eventually get a blurb. The discussion was here (archives are searchable from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Archives).—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) You can see the nomination in the history. Checking, I find that Poitier did actually get a blurb. I was misled because he was initially posted as an RD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, good that we caught the error. That does count as one (half) extra US representation, and I think this is another lovely example of an article we brought to the forefront on a person who a lot of people might've missed otherwise. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've updated the table above to add the blurb candidates identified by Thrydulf. Most of those add to the long tail but there was one more blurb – the Man of the Hole!
Gilbert Gottfried was the biggest celebrity addition. What's also worth noting is that the scientists and mathematicians tended not to do well -- David Cox, Frank Drake, James Lovelock and Luc Montagnier.
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks to everyone for putting together this data. I'm one who agrees that the blurbing is a problem -- Betty White but not Barbara Walters or Madeline Albright? The former pope is blurbed for two weeks but Russel wasn't? These are bizarre and biased results, and they reflect the biases in the voters. I'm not sure there is a solution to the problem that doesn't involve replacing the system with one that doesn't involve voting. Like one with objective criteria. So long as we vote on these individually, they will always reflect the biases of the volunteers who show up to vote. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are two easy solutions. One, !votes that are only based on saying this person was famous, or popular, or a household name, or similar terminology, and otherwise not arguing any other way should be ignored. That's the problem we had back when Carrie Fisher was posted as well as Betty White - too many driveby "she was truly beloved, post now!" !votes. Second, I've recommended that blurbs should require the article to have a Legacy, Impact, or similar section that clearly identified why the person was exemplary in their field. If such a section cannot be constructed from reliable sources (including recent obits), then there's almost no reason we should have a blurb. If such a section exists, then that's a least a point to argue from if the blurb should be included or not. Masem (t) 17:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was a discussion in the past that involved pre-vetting certain individuals for blurbs. I liked that idea but overall reception was cold. That or get rid of death blurbs outside of "death as the main story" blurbs (which really aren't even death blurbs as much as regular blurbs where the story is death). DarkSide830 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trending Topics[edit]

Screen from the iOS app for Wikipedia showing the Random article section – Irene Manton in this case

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

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

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

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

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

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

The iOS app for Wikipedia already does something like this. Its equivalent of the main page shows main page sections like TFA, POTD and OTD. It also has some additional sections and one of them is "Top read" which shows the 5 top read articles from the previous day plus a link to a longer list of the trending articles. Right now, it looks like the screenshot shown (right).
The top item is Damar Hamlin. This was nominated at ITN but the discussion has been closed to suppress it. So, while ITN hasn't changed its blurbs for four straight days, it still shows little interest in tracking what's actually in the news. Our readership doesn't care because they've gone directly to the article which interests them. And what's good in this case is that they're also finding Commotio cordis which is a relevant medical condition. So, Wikipedia is working well but ITN not so much.
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To repeat ad infinitum, ITN is not a news ticker, that's was the portal for current events covers. And readers are easily capable of finding topic that we don't yet cover by the search bar. The main page's purpose is to highlight quality article, not guide readers to articles they want to see. Masem (t) 22:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that all main page content must meet quality goals, which absolutely cannot be met with auto selection of topics. A separate page would be reasonable, and we goal link that from the ITN box (since we link the current events portal), but direct inclusion on the main page would be a problem. Masem (t) 00:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, this is quite mistaken. Automated features are quite acceptable on the home/main page as the screen shots from the official iOS app demonstrate. As well as the Top read articles, this automatically displays a Random article too – see example (right). What it doesn't do is display ITN very often because that is updated so infrequently. Currently, it hasn't shown ITN since Sunday, four days ago, when the Croatia/Euro blurb was added. The priority is to keep the content fresh, varied and interesting. Every main page section manages to do this except ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Leaving the decision on what gets posted to the highly visible Main Page up to a machine or algorithm is unwise for a variety of reasons, many of them relating to WP:BEANS. It's been said a few times that WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean that we can post shocking content without proper consideration. Having vetted processes avoids this, but a process that posts items just based on read count is unvetted by design. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I hear you. This is the part that requires some thinking. However, at the heart of it -- do you know why the iOS app en.Wiki home screen is any different from the en.Wiki homepage? i.e. Seems like the iOS app is under WMF purview whereas the www page is under this project / volunteer editors purview? Did I get that right? Also tagging @Whatamidoing (WMF) for their thoughts on this topic if they know. PS:To be clear I am not advocating putting sub-par content on the mainpage / homepage but am trying to see why the iOS app mainpage / homescreen is different.Ktin (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I haven't used either of the apps before. Let me see if I can find someone... Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    en.wiki has no control of what WMF is putting on the app, but we still have our priorities. Masem (t) 13:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For better or for worse, the mobile version and app version are not intended to be the same (mw:Wikimedia Apps#What is the difference between the apps and the mobile web version of Wikipedia?).—Bagumba (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...this automatically displays a Random article too..." The desktop version already has a "Random article" link. —Bagumba (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the MP could display some select "top reads" that have been vetted and are not already otherwise on ITN. This would be another incentive to improve WP pages. Could the items be added in a timely fashion? Perhaps a bot could help remove stale items no longer trending.—Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the general subject of dynamic content for the Main Page: I'm sure something could be done, and I don't want to discourage this discussion or generating ideas. This is an important thing to talk about. But I do want to say, very early in the process, that dynamic content on the Main Page is the kind of thing in which WP:PERFORMANCE could be an issue. I'm sure we can do something like this (if you want to), but the exact method of implementing the ideas might require more thought than if it were a regular article, or it might require some adjustment to the backend.
Once you've all settled on some ideas, I'd be happy to help you find someone in Technology/Ops to talk about the technical details. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be greatly appreciated @Whatamidoing (WMF)! Thanks a ton. Want to use this as a brainstorming bench. Ktin (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I honestly don't get the concept of a trending topics section. Why point people towards article they are already looking for anyway? The search bar works fine for that, IMO. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can be a way to find out what is happening in the world (I sometimes see interesting things I didn't know about in Twitter's trending topics) but it's not a reliable way and WP:TOP25's analysis is delayed but much more informative - especially as celebrity gossip or appearance on Netflix's latest big offering will often lead to viewership spikes but no significant change to content. It's certainly completely different to everything currently on the main page, ITN included. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an interesting idea, but - and I am likely stating the obvious here, I realize - if it's something we intend on putting on the Main Page, it'd have to be done through WP:CENT. And right now, there seems to be ongoing naked hostility towards doing anything that involves changing an iota of the Main Page. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's hostility, I just think the bar is being set high. Personally I think it's good that we are having these discussions, I just don't know if the ideas being presented of late are viable. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thank you @Ktin for this constructive conversation; let me answer your question regarding the the difference between the iOS app en.Wiki Main screen and www en.Wiki Main page.
Both apps present information from various languages in a card-based feed we call Explore. This is because mobile apps do not present content on small phones in the "web page template" style that websites do. So we take the content from those main pages that volunteers own and create, and we present that as cards in an easily scrollable and customizable feed. This also allows us to easily combine multiple languages into one place, which is not possible with the "web main page" system (each language is its own experience/page). It's also beneficial for multilingual users.
The traditional main page is still available in the app, but the Explore page presents a more "mobile app" experience for easy browsing.
Users can also turn off the Explore feed and save their main page if they prefer to go to the classic view quickly and easily and not see the Explore version of the content.
Finally, I hope this answer will be clear and satisfying. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove The Boat Race from ITN/R[edit]

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

  • Remove - as proposer. nableezy - 14:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No opinion yet, but I'd like to remind everyone that a subject like the Boat Race or college football can still get an annual blurb, even if they're not on ITN/R, if their article is of sufficient quality. Removal of ITN/R would not (necessarily) mean that we'll never blurb the Boat Race again, just that it won't automatically pass. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pinging The Rambling Man since he regularly nominates and updates the articles surrounding the Boat Race (all of which have been FA's) so he would likely be interested to know that this discussion is occurring. That said, oppose - this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose one of the most famous and important amateur events in the world. It's very much in the news when it happens. Seems a bit WP:POINTY to me. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How is it famous or important when it lacks the coverage that events that are rejected for lack of importance or fame? And no, not pointy, asking for a consistency besides "Four legs good, two legs bad" or "English good, American bad". If, as is argued at ITN, that college sports are unworthy of ITN, much less being ITN/R, then that should apply uniformly, and not carve out a special exception for a special sport on a special island. nableezy - 14:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Weird, rowing is a global sport. The Boat Race features rowers from around the world. The Boat Race is broadcast globally. This is a weird take. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The article is generally always posted every year, I see no reason to remove it from the list. ITNR is merely a list of articles we post every year already, and The Boat Race qualifies. Other arbitrary metrics are not really relevant to such a discussion, merely "do we, based on past performance, expect this to be posted every year as long as the quality is up-to-snuff". Based on past performance, The Boat Race has never failed to make the main page, as long as quality is fine. --Jayron32 14:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is there a way to test this argument? How do we know if an ITN/R item should no longer be ITN/R? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In my opinion, ITN/R items should be nominated for removal if:
    • The item has failed to be nominated for its last two or three occurrences, indicating a lack of interest in maintaining the item on ITN (barring some truly exceptional circumstances), or
    • Even more rarely, there is an overwhelming consensus not to post the item on ITN/C once nominated, specifically because its exclusion from ITN would best serve Wikipedia's interests.
    That's what I tend to see as historically being the key motivators for removal, and I think it keeps the process sufficiently removed from WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT voting. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here is how to get an item removed from WP:ITNR: 1) Nominate it for removal from the list 2) See if there is consensus that it doesn't belong on the list. I kinda thought that was exactly what we are doing here, but maybe I'm confused and not you... --Jayron32 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think Maplestrip is saying that your argument that "items on ITNR should be kept if they're posted at ITNC" is circular because items at ITNC are posted because they're on ITNR. Iff this is correct then the only way items could be removed from ITNR is if they are not nominated or if the quality is regularly not good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, exactly that. You say it as though you were not expecting it to be true? I mean, we still do need to have the discussion, and see where consensus lies. My rationale for keeping it on the list is "It gets posted easily every year". Perhaps other people have different rationales. If we didn't expect them to, then there would be no need for a discussion, n'est ce pas? I certainly am not so presumptuous to think that my way is the only way a person could think about the issue. If anyone believe that, why would we even have discussions; if there was only one possible perspective, and nothing else were ever possible, there would never be a need to discuss everything, it would all be pre-decided. My belief is that we should not remove this item because we have no evidence that it doesn't get posted all of the time. My belief is not that anyone else cannot be allowed to have different beliefs. --Jayron32 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thryduulf understood my concern correctly. If we follow Jayron's logic, currently, the only way the Boat Race could be removed from the list is if editors stop writing good articles about it. However, ITN/R should not be related to article quality at all. Imagine if E3 was still in ITN/R because one editor put the work in every year. Surely, nominating such an item for removal here would be the correct way to get it removed? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, if we follow my logic, the way we get the Boat Race removed from the list is to have a consensus of editors who think that it doesn't belong on the list. As I just said in the comment you are responding to, and also in my comment dated 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC), I have no expectation that anyone should or should not agree with me. I have a belief and a rationale for that belief. Maybe there will be consensus that aligns with my belief. Maybe there will be a consensus in the other direction. The point of having the discussion is not to validate ones own beliefs or to invalidate the beliefs of those who think differently, it's to assess consensus. I hold no requirement that my belief will be the consensus. As I stated above, discussions are necessary because I am not so presumptuous to think that because I have a belief, everyone must agree with me. --Jayron32 17:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. An amateur student event which has all the same problems as the US college sports. I have consistently opposed posting the Oxbridge boat race in ITN for over a decade. The race is not the top level of rowing - that is the Olympic Games (though we could maybe consider adding the World Rowing Championships as well). The TV audience isn't particularly large either. It's a relic of the British class system and barely registers with anyone except graduates of those two institutions. Modest Genius talk 14:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose while it is an amateur level event it is also the top level event for rowing (short of the Olympic rowing events). Add that the article for the race is nearly always well above quality requirements within a few hours after the race. --Masem (t) 15:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove This has been controversial for years. There's a demonstrated lack of consensus (in the real world sense of the term, not the insular Wikipedia sense.) Zagalejo (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1) Please point to these real-world discussions that demonstrate a lack of consensus about whether Wikipedia should post The Boat Race to ITN. 2) Please explain how and why a consensus anywhere other than this page or WP:ITNC (or at WT:ITNR before it was merged here) is relevant. 3) Please explain why Wikipedia's definition of consensus is not relevant to discussions internal to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia's definition of consensus typically means that the loudest and most persistent voices get their way. Anyway, the Boat Race has been questioned on this talk page repeatedly, with discussions going back to at least 2015. (Check the archive.) Zagalejo (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That doesn't answer any of the questions asked. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Most of your questions don't relate to my main point. I was just trying to say that there has been historical disagreement within Wikipedia about the Boat Race. The original 2014 ITNR nomination was closed as having reached a consensus, but when I look at that discussion, I think User:Howard the Duck made some convincing points that no one adequately addressed. Zagalejo (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And note that the original nomination was quite acrimonious: [8]. Let's not pretend it sailed through with unanimous support. Zagalejo (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Consensus doesn't require unanimous support, but that is also irrelevant to the questions asked. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Leaning Oppose, because ... if we're starting a nomination with "All of the arguments that are used against including the College Football Championship apply to the Boat Race", then one could argue that all of those arguments apply to the NCAA basketball as well. I'm also a little wary that we would have no rowing events at all which are ITN/R. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps World Rowing Championships? — xaosflux Talk 20:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) That's why I mentioned the World Rowing Championship, though unfortunately it appears the yearly articles are just masses of tables. Modest Genius talk 20:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose last few years has been Covid, right? Odd time to start making comparisons for coverage. One race was cancelled, another held behind closed doors. As far as I can tell, this is a good-faith proposal, but it totally misses the mark as usual. We go through this every couple of years. It's remarkable to me that some individuals don't want to feature ITN sports events with multi-national athletes (often up to World/Olympic standard) whose article is normally up to GA status at least by the time it's nominated. But life is far too short and too precious to get worked up about it. If this goes, so should any other amateur contest such as NCAA. As an aside, reducing ITN/R items just makes the process more stagnant than it already is. Bravo. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, the searches posted above go to 2019. That is the time before Covid for those keeping track. nableezy - 23:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Personally, I don't see the boat race or the College Football Championship as being amateur events, but we have no rule restricting events to professional sports. Yes, the argument that "items on ITNR should be kept if they're posted at ITNC" is circular, but so is Wikipedia:Non-free content. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Do y'all have to do this to The Rambling Man so frequently? Can we just agree to give it a decade before the next one of these discussions? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think people just want consistent standards for what sports events can get featured. If we're going to shut down discussions about college football, then that raises questions about sports events that seem to have a similar level of importance. Zagalejo (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are different dimensions upon which consistency is built. I think you may be taking too narrow a view of what is being consistently applied here. I can always pick some measure upon which any decision looks "inconsistent". If you're seeing an inconsistency, maybe your assessing the wrong thing... --Jayron32 12:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weakremove. On the one hand, the articles are of high quality, and there is evidence it is one of the highest levels in the sport. However, in addition to it being a student competition, it's a competition whose teams are selected beforehand. It isn't a national championship like NCAA basketball. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Amending; no longer hesitant, removal is appropriate. I don't believe an event being at the pinnacle of a given sport is enough; it needs to be an event of significance in general, and TBR's status as a race between two colleges (no matter how many scholarship hijinks occur to include non-students) makes it of fundamentally small scope. In the same spirit, I would probably support the removal of darts, or other sports with limited attention. On reading the current list, it blows my mind that we're featuring rowing and darts, but not field hockey, badminton, or ping-pong (all of which have considerable viewership in east and south asia), let alone more locally popular sports. When we're not listing the highest level professional tournaments for those sports at ITN/R, it doesn't make sense to me to include this amateur event. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per Modest Genius and Vanamonde. I fail to see anything in reading up on this event that demonstrates its importance even within the context of rowing, much less sports and society as a whole. In particular I stand with Vanamonde's argument about the composition of the event. Why honestly do we care about a competition between two colleges? DarkSide830 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You clearly don't know the difference between a college and a university is in this context. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, a clearly unknowledgeable comment. These are two of the oldest universities in the world. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...each of which has over 30 colleges within them. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of which get to advance through any kind of season or playoff system that would make this arcane rivalry a bit more sportsmanlike and fair. Also, it's perfectly acceptable for an American to call a university a college, TV says so. You're only an idiot, in context, if you call a college a university. Deal with it! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I can't find a single compelling argument that this should be removed. In this case, there's something called 'tradition' and 'historical significance'. The race has been in existence for almost 200 years and pre-dates the Olympics and the World Rowing Championships (moreover, it's one of the oldest continuously held competitions in modern sport history). At that time, no distinction was made between professional and amateur sports, so it's silly to call it an amateur event because, unlike many other amateur competitions, it was not inaugurated as a secondary league alongside the top-flight competition. Finally, the viewership has never been a decisive criterion to rate ITN-worthiness of events, so the fact that other events have higher viewership doesn't make a strong argument for removal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The distinction between amateur and professional was indeed of minor importance in the 1800s, but it isn't now. There are many professional rowers, who qualify for international competitions based on merit, where they compete for Olympic medals, world championships, and prize money. None of that happens in the Oxbridge race, which is only open to current students at two universities, who are guaranteed a spot every year. It is not the top level of competition in the sport of rowing. I agree that the event is historic, but that isn't one of the ITN criteria. So is the The Varsity Polo Match, but no-one thinks that should be on ITNR. Modest Genius talk 14:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not the case in the 21st century. Look at the team rosters. The teams are composed of Olympic athletes from around the world, nominally students on sports scholarships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's...utterly bizarre, but is actually making me think further on the importance, so thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per nom. Banedon (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nice to see you again Banedon. Always adding value. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove, not a top-level event, receiving little attention outside its country (treated more as a somewhat quirky or venerable tradition, like the Pamplona bull runs, the Siena horse race, ... but not really as a sporting event). That the article about it are top quality is good, they can be DYKs when they reach GA or grace the front page as FAs when they reach that status, but that isn't an argument to keep them in ITNr (nor, obviously, one to remove them). Fram (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove While this is a historical event that attracts decent attention within its country, I can't ignore the issues surrounding it that warrant its removal from ITN/R. This is an ameteur event between two universities, meaning the participants are set each year unlike other sports where teams have to compete for spots. This is not the top-level for rowing either. World Rowing Championships would be a more appropriate feature for rowing. It is hypocritical to feature an ameteur event between two universities while other ameteur events between other univerisites that attract a much wider audience and do not have set participants are not featured. NoahTalk 16:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would think that if the goal is to feature more articles on ITN that readers may be interested in, particularly those that are Featured Articles or Good Articles, the answer to that is not to continue to pull events out of ITN/R just because some other item didn't gain traction. All this is going to lead to is, as The Rambling Man said, ITN becoming barren and uninteresting. It's better for the long-term health of ITN to focus our collective efforts on adding rather than subtracting, instead of cutting off our noses to spite our faces, which in my mind is the real hypocrisy here. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ITN doesn't become "barren and uninteresting" by removing one sporting event from ITNR: sports is one of the most common ITN items anyway, and being removed from ITNR doesn't mean that it can't be proposed at ITN anyway, it's just that it won't get an automatic pass. By the way, all this talk about GA and FA is actually wrong, at the time of the appearance of the 2022 Boat Race on ITN it was neither a GA nor a FA (would be hard to do that with a just-finished event of course). Fram (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The significance of the event doesn't change from year to year. It doesn't seem productive to force everyone to have an annual discussion over its merits as an event when we could just do it here, once, and then focus on the quality at each year's nom. That's kind of the point of ITN/R. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Gets posted every year as the article is always of high quality, is of historic importance, rowing is a global sport, and it is a high level competition. The athletes who compete in it are always of Olympic standard, so it's silly to think of it as merely an "amateur" competition between university students. I also generally support the posting of the college football championship, although that shouldn't really be relevant to this discussion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Part of holding oneself to an Olympic standard is testing one's mettle against the best in the world, not just the best Oxford has this year. Or Cambridge, if you're one of the few who get into Oxford. Neither could whoop Nipissing, that's all I know. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove amateur event that literally can only have one of two possible winners. How is "Cambridge this year" really worth spending valuable space on every year unquestioningly, no matter how boring and predictable and unsurprising the actual race or outcome was? Valereee (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per the way this feels it will go from here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This makes no sense, but why am I not surprised by the "pile-on hate for TRM" brigade clearly gathering here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It makes sense if you're Canadian. You clearly never will be, either. But I don't hate you for it. I blame your overall ancient national education system for suggesting one boat race is inherently bigger just for recurring than the relatively stacked WrestleManias which I'm routinely fine not getting my way about. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Agree entirely with the complaints about circular reasoning above. If an item is on ITN/R, then !voters are not allowed to oppose an item at ITN/C over significance. And if we can't hold a removal discussion on a ITN/R item solely based on significance, then it means that as long as a small group of passionate people are willing to update the article quickly every year, there is literally no way to remove it from ITN/R even if consensus changes. I have long felt that our "In the news" section has strayed too far from what a layperson would imagine it containing; undue emphasis on quality (I admit the Boat Race articles are all quite good) at the cost of newsworthiness. I see no reason why we should be ashamed to compare the relative importance of different topics; there is finite space in the ITN section and what we choose to highlight says a lot about us. We can have an overall lower bar for significance where the Boat Race, College Football Playoff, major sub-national elections, etc. are all posted, or a higher bar where none of these are posted. I just don't see how this is globally more significant than the CFP or the election of the mayor of London or NYC (which actually impacts a lot of people's lives). "Historic importance" might be a good argument to include something in "On this day", which is actually about history; "In the news" is not that. -- King of ♥ 04:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural note - Given the potential outcomes for this discussion, it's worth noting that there was another discussion held back in September of last year which tried to determine whether an ITN/R removal discussion that ends in no consensus should default to a "delete". Ironically, I don't think that discussion ever came to a consensus either. But the points brought up might be relevant here.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That doesn't sound right. No consensus always means "retain the status quo", so in this case that would mean the boat race continuing to be ITN/R. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed. A local consensus on this talk page cannot override how consensus works on Wikipedia. If an uninvolved closer judges this discussion as "remove", then it gets removed. Otherwise, it stays.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The onus for consensus falls on those seeking inclusion, see WP:ONUS. That surely applies to the main page. ITN/R has become a way for vested contributors to skip past the requirement of gaining consensus for material to put on literally the main page. The Boat Race wouldnt get consensus on ITN/C right now just based on this discussion, but through these things like claiming a consensus of 4 editors on some page six years ago forever grants them real estate on the main page it sticks. nableezy - 14:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say so. WP:ONUS is a function of article text alone. It's a very very very important practice for deciding content of articles, but I see nowhere that it necessarily applies to things like "Whether or not the Boat Race should or should not have its results posted at ITN". Surely that's a matter for discussion and not over-reaching a policy that doesn't apply. --Jayron32 14:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But ITN/R exists to bypass consensus on ITN/C. And ONUS is about including disputed content, how could a random article have that enforced and not the main page? If there is not a consensus for it then it should not be retained. In fact, Amakuru, that was your position in that discussion. Whats changed? nableezy - 14:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nableezy: I guess if you analyze my comment in September vs my comment today, you'll get a no consensus outcome... How apt. 😏  — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lol, but which way preavils then? nableezy - 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ITN/R does NOT exist to bypass consensus. It is a summary of previous consensus. And an ITN blurb is not "article content". --Jayron32 14:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it exists to bypass consensus on ITN/C, thats why ITN/R items are not subject to the consensus of ITN/C. The discussion that added the Boat Race had 5 people supporting. But that makes it so this forever is on the main page. And where exactly does WP:ONUS specify it is about article content? The Main Page is in the mainspace (Main Page is not in project space, talk space or any other subspace), and all material in the mainspace is subject to WP:V, which ONUS is a part of. But forget the policy, who cares. How is it reasonable to insist that an item be on the main page when it lacks consensus for its inclusion? Because 6 years ago 5 people agreed? When now considerably more than that disagree? How does that make any sense? nableezy - 14:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
where exactly does WP:ONUS specify it is about article content? I would say the part that states While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. (My emphasis). But if we were to extend the scope of ONUS, then what about WP:NOCONSENSUS, which states When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So your position is that WP:V does not apply to the main page? Nothing about ITN/R is common, 5 users from 8 years ago trumping a discussion five times the size now is not common. nableezy - 14:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, my position is that WP:V is not relevant to this discussion and you are trying to bend the definition of ONUS to where it does not apply.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then how about the basic logic of 5 people 8 years ago do not trump a discussion with coming on 30 today? nableezy - 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, it's blatantly obvious what is happening here. You're poisoning the well because you see that there is a strong chance that not enough people will agree with you that a clear consensus will go your way, so now you're saying that it would be unjust the discussion to be closed as "no-consensus" and maintain the status quo. Just stop with the meta-discussion; it is unbecoming at this point. An uninvolved person will at some point assess consensus and decide what to do, stop trying to anticipate that they could reach an unjust conclusion and influence the discussion that way. You influence the discussion by voting. You've done that. At some point, the meta-discussion becomes WP:BLUDGEONing, and needs to stop. Let your vote be oppose or remove, let other people vote how they will, and let someone else close the discussion how they see fit. The rest of this is distracting. --Jayron32 15:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assume bad faith much? Ive had the same position in that discussion referenced, that it should require an affirmative consensus to remain. So maybe reorient your view on what is blatantly obvious a bit? You dont know what Im thinking, or why, and my view on what is right or wrong is not so malleable that it shifts based on the position I take in one specific discussion. I see you dont have an answer to any of the questions asked, like how 5 people 8 years ago would trump this discussion. nableezy - 15:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You still don't get multiple votes in the discussion. Your position is clear. It doesn't need further elaboration. Give it a rest and let other people give their views. --Jayron32 17:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I havent voted multiple times, somebody else raised a process question and I gave my position on the process. A position Ive consistently held. You then made several assumptions of bad faith and attributed motives to me that are manifestly not true. Thanks. nableezy - 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose - This is a massively pointy nomination, and I think that a direct comparison with US college sports is deeply misleading. It's not like there's a National Rowing League that the Boat Race is a feeder for, or anything. This is the single most prominent and culturally significant rowing event. And I get that that's weird, and that's why my opposition is only weak. I'd be happy to argue for or against each Boat Race on the merits if it came to it. But this is being proposed because an unrelated US event didn't get posted, and that's disruptive. And I concur with Jayron32 above, that no consensus means a retention of the status quo, not a default to non-inclusion. Nableezy is patently trying to misrepresent the rules in order to steamroller through their preferred outcome. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lol wut? nableezy - 14:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a valid argument. You went straight to nominating this for removal after you made a derogatory comment about the closure of the CFP nom. Absolutely this was a WP:POINTy act. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me seeking to make ITN more equitable and honest is not disrupting Wikipedia. If you feel that it is, WP:ANI is open 24x7. nableezy - 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think anyone has any interest in going to WP:ANI, but I would certainly mind your discourse at ITN, and incidentally also avoid comments like That right there, thats the dumbest thing youve said this week when we are trying to have civil discussions about how ITN should operate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice, leaving out the part where I was called a liar for using a synonym. nableezy - 15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree with HiLo's method of discourse either. But it takes two to tango, and you could have disengaged at any time instead of continuing to escalate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove based on most of the arguments above and the following, if I have any of these points wrong please let me know. This is a restricted competition between students of only 2 organizations, similar in composition to all of these: University rowing in the United Kingdom#University races, despite being larger in legacy and visibility. (Contrast to the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS mentioned by the nominator which is theoratically accesible to 100+ organizations). Regarding representing rowing in general, World Rowing Championships appears to be a better annual event, though the recent annual articles have been light on details and should contain more than just stat tables for inclusion. — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note that The Ashes and the Ryder Cup are also events restricted to two specific teams but are also ITN/R. I'm not sure that's directly relevant to whether we should or shouldn't keep it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Amakuru I'm not very familiar with those events, but they appear to have a "national" team that can be comprised of any qualifying or selected person, not restricted to a very small subset of the population (such as full-time students associated with a specific school); if so they would be much less restricted than TBR. — xaosflux Talk 16:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xaosflux: It depends on your take on those things. On the one hand, The Boat Race is a contest between two universities, which are not countries and make it seem more restrictive. On the other hand, those two universities admit students from all over the world and there are multi-national crews every year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per xaos and the other remove votes above. It's not significant enough to justify spending the screen real estate. Also I agree with the general call for consistent standards for ITN. This is a very unimportant sports competition in the world of sports competitions (far smaller audience than most college sports). Posting darts and rowing and snooker but not posting college football is just stupid. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per nableezy, Modest Genius, Vanamonde, King of Hearts, xaosflux, and Levivich. The fact that this discussion keeps recurring means we don't have a solid consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. While the nomination itself feels a bit WP:POINTY, the sports items at ITN/R are largely professional events, with the major exception being the NCAA D1 basketball tournaments, which were added in large part due to comparisons to The Boat Race. In the case of basketball, the culture around March Madness and the "perfect bracket" dominates discussion more than the games themselves. I would be amenable to replacing TBR with the World Rowing Championships. — GhostRiver 20:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The article tends to be one of quality, the event is well covered and is widely watched. I think we should lean toward featuring more items on ITN, NCAA basketball and American football championships included. SpencerT•C 20:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's true, we should post both, but we don't. This is textbook disparate impact: we have a process in place that always post TBR and always rejects CFP, even though the latter is more significant by any objective metric. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove as per nableezy, Modest Genius, xaosflux, Levivich, and others. Calling this a WP:POINTY proposal is a disingenuous and disappointing attempt to delegitimize the discussion. This state of affairs has been problematic for many years and is referenced regularly in ITN discussions as one of our most questionable best practices. At best, it's a quirky outlier in our collaborative list of highly-notable sporting events. At worst, it is an embarrassment to our consistency that becomes a wedge issue in many front-page blurb conversations. In good faith, the nominator started this talk page discussion to try to resolve this.

    Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the sports landscape would find this situation odd and inconsistent and would ask, "Why does The Boat Race have a privileged regular spot while other clearly more popular events by viewership (see below) that the public has an interest in reading about have to claw and fight each year for an WP:ITN posting?" I don't have a good answer for those folks.

    Can we identify any other sporting ITN/R item that are this constrained in terms of the "competition," where the two participants are unchanging and completely known beforehand? I'm astonished people have framed this as "high level competition" when by definition the same two designated constituents facing each other each year is the opposite. The Boat Race has ceremony, history, tradition, and majesty. Let's not oversell it as "high level competition" on the global stage. Let's also put this all into perspective here - we are discussing its front page blurb status and not deleting it. No one wants it deleted. People can still read about it easily, and it should be in Portal:Current events every year, like clockwork. It's time. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let's also put this all into perspective here - we are discussing its front page blurb status, and not for deleting it. This too is disingenuous. Your wording implies that once removed from ITN/R, it will never be eligible again for posting on ITN. That isn't how it works; in fact, the "Please do not..." header on ITN/C explicitly points this out. The items can still be nominated for ITN/C, there just needs to be a local consensus on significance rather than automatically receiving the "protection" that ITN/R provides. Consider the fact that the College Football Playoff is nominated every year and there have actually been years where it has been posted, despite not being ITN/R. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It wasn't meant to imply it would never be eligible for posting on ITN. It was simply to say this is a lot of drama for something that will still be available in prominent ways. A removal from ITN/R would still mean it's a blank slate for being on ITN/C. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the college football championship was posted in some years but not others, are we implying that the importance of the event changed from one year to another? Or is this simply because Wikipedia decisions get made by the small handful of people who showed up in a discussion one day? Zagalejo (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm mistaken, the header does not say what I thought it did. I think once upon a time it did. Nevertheless, items aren't forbidden from being nominated and posted through ITN/C just because they aren't on ITN/R. From my recollection, it has never worked that way.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    EG: this is the process trying to be demonstrated for the Game Awards currently at the top of this page. Masem (t) 16:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove English cultural thing, I guess, bit like the Grand National, I used to watch both once upon a time. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Grand National that is also ITN/R. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seems like something worth examining ;) nableezy - 16:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, let's get rid of all the horse races as they're just locally interesting, especially the Kentucky Derby for instance. Good idea. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose removal Given the current state of ITN, where the oldest blurb is two weeks old, I believe we need more blurbs, not less. Although we cannot control when news happens, keeping ITN fresh would require an average of a blurb a day, and the easiest way to address that would be to allow more blurbs to pass the "significance" standard, since we're not going to (and shouldn't) remove the quality standard. I therefore vote in favour of keeping/adding all three college sports events to ITN/R. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @NorthernFalcon: What you're arguing for here is a fundamental change in how ITN works! While I very much agree with that point, it's separate from how ITN currently works and the point of having ITNR. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We can chose to remove certain items while at the same time broadening what we include in ITN. To me, I have voted "remove" not because The Boat Race is a borderline item, but because it isn't even close in my mind. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per nom. The Boat Race pales in comparison to most of the other entries on ITNR. Plus, like others have above, it's worth stressing that the Boat Race can still be blurbed in the future. This discussion is only about whether the Boat Race is no longer "considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN" (words from ITNR, emphasis mine). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "The Boat Race pales in comparison to most of the other entries on ITNR" please provide reliably sourced evidence for your claim. Or is it simply "your opinion"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The entire ITNR list was built with people's personal opinions. Specifically, opinions on topics vis-à-vis the "importance" criterion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove I don't believe this is the best solution to the problem. The best solution IMO is to treat significance as a (fairly low) threshold and hold quality to higher account. But that was been rejected by the community when I proposed it. Given where we sit now, it makes us look silly to post such an insignificant event every year. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a bizarre position, what isn't "the best solution to the problem"? What's the problem? We post badminton and college sports and other "insignificant events" every year. Has anyone outside this community complained about it looking "silly" or did you just make that up? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no cause for personal attacks, and I've no intention to engage with uncivil and bad faith arguments. Your position has been noted, as has mine. Let that be enough. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove as not notable enough to merit inclusion in ITN/R. Consensus seems strong to remove it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Frankly, I don't fall far short of arguing that ITNR should be constrained to global events of global impact. For example, perhaps the inaugurations of major political leaders—US, SFR, China etc.,―with an emphasis on global, so neither the quasi-leader of Burkino Faso Disputed Zone or amateur sports, for that matter should automatically qualify. Otherwise, front page-worthy material should be there wholly on its own merits. SN54129 12:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verify status of NCAA Basketball for ITN/R[edit]

This is not necessarily a call to remove the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament from ITN/R, but given how the above discussions are trending, I'd like to know what makes this item different from the CFP (rejected) and the Boat Race (on its way to being removed) that it would automatically meet the significance standard each year when proposed for ITN/C. As explained above, it's an amateur sport limited mostly to universities and colleges in the United States. It's also not the top level of competition nationally, much less internationally. The argument that I frequently hear is that it has high international viewership, but I'd like to see some stats for this as well as a consensus that this meets our significance standards. If we are weighing consensus overall of what sorts of sporting items should be granted ITN/R status, then I think it's fair that we take a look at this as well.

Personally, I do think that we should trend more towards adding to ITN/R, rather than subtracting, in order to keep the ITN template fresh and frequently updated. I know others may feel differently, and consensus on ITN changes on a fairly regular basis, so let's discuss it (civilly, please). 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • huh. But sure, if college sports dont belong on ITN/R this one shouldnt either. nableezy - 18:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are we rehashing this? Just re-read the successful ITNR proposal here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because that was six years ago, and consensus can change. In addition, a lot of the support rationales for that item cited The Boat Race as a reason. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In spite of the attempts to compare this to The Boat Race, they are not the same other than being amateur competitions. And there's no reason to not post something because it's amateur. March Madness remains one of the biggest sporting events in the U.S. and should remain ITNR as it was gaining consensus in the years prior to being added to ITNR and likely still will without it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some stats:
Goal [9], citing Playersbio.com [10] (Goal only republished 1-10, see Playersbio for 11-15); a nearly-identical list is published at Roadtrips.com:
  1. Tour de France - 3.5 billion viewers
  2. Soccer World Cup - 3.3B
  3. Cricket World Cup - 2.6B
  4. Summer Games - 2B (how the heck is Summer Olympic Games not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that title???)
  5. Winter Games Winter Olympic Games - 2B (we have an Olympics primary topic problem here)
  6. Women's World Cup - 1.12B (that's the FIFA Women's World Cup, oy)
  7. Boxing - 1B
  8. UEFA Champions League - 380M
  9. Super Bowl - 96.4M
  10. NCAA Final Four - 16.9M
  11. NBA Finals - 16.54M
  12. Kentucky Derby - 14.5M
  13. World Series - 14.35M
  14. World Cup of Rugby - 12.8M (Rugby League World Cup)
  15. The Masters - 9.45M
Bleacher Report [11]:
  1. FIFA World Cup
  2. Olympic Games
  3. 24 Hours of Le Mans
  4. Super Bowl
  5. Grand National
  6. The Masters
  7. Polo at Palermo
  8. Wimbleton
  9. Kentucky Derby
  10. NBA Finals
  11. Cricket World Cup
  12. World Series
  13. Tour de France
  14. March Madness
  15. UEFA Champions League Final
  16. Ryder Cup
  17. BCS National Championship Game
  18. Daytona 500
  19. Rugby World Cup
  20. Boston Marathon
  21. The Open Championship
  22. Indianapolis 500
  23. Stanley Cup Finals
  24. Monaco Grand Prix
  25. The Rose Bowl
Top5.com (dunno if this is an RS):
  1. FIFA World Cup
  2. Summer Olympics
  3. Cricket World Cup
  4. Super Bowl
  5. Monaco Grand Prix
  6. Tour de France
  7. Giro d'Italia
  8. UEFA Champions League
  9. FIFA Confederations Cup
  10. Rugby World Cup
  11. Asian Games
  12. Winter Olympics
  13. NBA Finals
  14. World Series
  15. NCAA Final Four
Note that rowing, sailing, darts, snooker, and sports like that, don't even make these lists, but NCAA does, and it's right up there with the NBA. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Useful metrics-based analysis that I also noticed when doing some searching about relative popularity. Basketball is an international sport so that alone means the audience is much more expansive, so this should not surprise us. The NCAA basketball tournament is also much more inclusive with a bracket of 68 teams, and the "Final Four" easily make it into the top ranks of watched sports events, even if the sites (Playersbio.com, Roadtrips, Goal) are not an iron clad WP:RS. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since it made ITNR, has it been consistently promoted to the main page? Has the status as a "regularly posted item" come under scrutiny because it isn't being posted? I checked: 2022 was posted, 2021 was posted, there was no game in 2020 (it got Covided) 2019 was posted, 2018 was posted, 2017 was posted, 2016 was posted (pre-ITNR listing), 2015 was posted (pre-ITNR listing), 2014 was posted (pre-ITNR listing). That's when I got tired of looking. So, it's been posted every year since 2014 (inclusive) including the three years prior to it being added to ITNR. The data seems to bear out that this gets regularly posted to the ITN. I see no reason to remove it given that data. --Jayron32 19:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Isn't this a tournament comprised of over 350 teams from different organziations, making it many orders of magnitude larger in scope than the 2 local organizations The Boat Race has. — xaosflux Talk 19:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not technically a sporting event and India isn't technically an English-speaking country, but for semicompleteness' sake, WrestleMania 38 had 56 millionish viewers in India. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment one thing that does seem odd is having NCAA basketball but not NCAA football. I'd have thought the latter was the more popular event in the American calendar, but I could be wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See above comment - NCAA basketball tournament is 68 teams and has many more overall viewers for "March Madness." - Fuzheado | Talk 12:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    March Madness lasts for weeks, while even many fringe basketball fans fill out a tournament bracket, either for betting purposes or bragging rights, to predict the most winners (see March Madness pools). Lots of lost workforce hours in the early rounds as games played during the day on weekdays, and people stream at work and watch, or in the old days, stay home "sick" and watch at home on TV.—Bagumba (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're not wrong: NCAA football is more popular than NCAA basketball (in every way: more players, more in-game attendance, more viewership, more money). The 2023 College Football Playoff National Championship had 17 million viewers [12], which apparently was an all-time low, so that game should have made these lists; I don't know why it didn't. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's a unique phenomena, but the NCAA basketball tournament is more the story than the championship game itself.[13]Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is not rocket science Either have the three college-level events on ITN/R, or have none of them. THere is no effective difference between them. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What's the third one? Basketball, football, and...? Also, you say there is no effective difference between them, but what about the difference in size of audience? Levivich (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Little League, maybe? 2600:1700:31BA:9410:ED71:FC7B:C5B7:DB09 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The software doesn't let you thank IPs, so: thanks, IP :-) Levivich (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NCAA Women's Division I Cross Country Championship perhaps.....— xaosflux Talk 15:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No difference if we ignore diversityBagumba (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait if we remove the Boat Race, we should then remove this. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove the above "vote" says it all. Fucking insane to "remove A because of B". Get on with it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is it really considered acceptable discourse to directly call another editor insane? GreatCaesarsGhost 22:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constantine II[edit]

Better late?[edit]

Today, King Constantine II appeared for the first time as a blurb. His death was quite stale as it happened 7 days ago, and so the blurb appeared below the top blurb about the plane crash in Nepal. Running such a news a week after it happened is not a good look as most readers are now looking for more recent deaths like Gina Lollobrigida. But some must still be interested in the former King as there's an interesting twin peaks effect appearing in the views. But that second peak isn't due to ITN as the blurb has only just been posted. I suspect it's an effect of weekly periodicals like Hello! which follows royalty and is distributed on Mondays. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it took a while to get it up to standards, and it is the second-newest blurb. Lollobrigida's article is not ready in any case. Tone 10:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The second peak in views is probably due to his funeral, which was on the 16th. Stephen 10:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stephen makes a good point. The funeral was attended by European royalty such as Princess Anne and so got good coverage in the news such as the BBC. So, it would be good if the blurb mentioned the funeral and then it would seem more timely. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're an encyclopedia rather than a news website, so I don't believe us putting this on our front page a week after it happened is a "bad look" at all. Quite the opposite, it would show our ability to do quality-control and write a decent encyclopedic article pretty quickly after a major event. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our practice seems inconsistent as the Yeti plane crash was posted on the day it happened even though all the details, such as the cause, were not yet clear. Mixing up breaking news with more considered entries may be confusing to our readership. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's a fair concern. I wouldn't mind if ITN was a bit slower overall, to prioritize quality and depth, but I recognize and understand the drive to present the news to readers quickly too. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

I looked at the discussion for Constantine II and see many opposes for the blurb. On what grounds and under what Wikipedia policies was this blurb posted? I do not see any consensus based on the discussion, and very well reasoned arguments opposing the blurb. Is there any meaning to our policies related to blurbs at all at this point? The more of these we post the more there will be precedent creep that demands posting of increasingly less notable figures on ITN for something that "Recent Deaths" was introduce to handle. Colipon+(Talk) 03:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there was no consensus to post a blurb; it was certainly mixed, and we should only be posting blurbs when there's clear consensus. This needs to be undone. Masem (t) 04:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion has been archived now. In that, Spencer describes this as a "narrow consensus". I did not enter a !vote but now his funeral is in the news again (see above), I'm content with it appearing as a blurb. Note that the readership of the article is comparable with the top blurb and way ahead of the lower three blurbs which have a tiny readership now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind that this subject got blurbed, as his article looks nice, describes the death in-depth, and it works for the relatively quiet news month. There's no problem here, but you're right that I don't think this is the type of article we'd usually feature in ITN. At the very least, it feels very encyclopedic of us? :p ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Masem. There should be a clear consensus to post a blurb, with a "narrow" consensus defaulting to no consensus. Should have been posted to RD instead.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ITN isn't a strictly democratic process and the posting of an item like this with narrow or even no consensus is generally an indicator of poor "Oppose" arguments. There was no rule broken here. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: At the time I posted, there was approximately 2:1 consensus in favor of support, with 16 users expressing outright support for a blurb (TheCorriynial, TomMasterReal, Precarious Words, Mikedelis, Joe Biden Real 1942, MyriadSims, Estar8806, Kiril Simeonovski, Kirill C1, Maplestrip, Therealscorp1an, Rockstone, the IP, Koltinn, ArionEstar, Rushtheeditor), 10 users opposing for quality but supporting a blurb if improved (Alsor, Tone, Ad Orientem, Darkside830, NorthernFalcon, Anarchyte, Thryduulf, TheBlueSkyClub, Bestagon, GenevieveDEon), with 14 opposes (Muboshgu, Masem, TompaDompa, Black Kite [oppose based on quality without a clear statement regarding a blurb; given less weight after article quality improved], Sandstein, Kicking222, Ghmyrtle, Modest Genius, Nableezy, SoWhy, UnknownTemptation [note that their opposition included a comparison to another article that was actually blurbed], Vida0007 [same as Unknown Temptation, comparison to another article that was blurbed], Pawnkingthree, Nsk92). Article quality was improved late but met ITN standards at the time I evaluated consensus, so I took those statements accordingly in favor of a blurb. Although other admins may feel differently, for me, 2:1 in favor of supporting is consensus for posting an item at ITN, even if narrower than other nominations. Best, SpencerT•C 15:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support for an RD is not the same as support for a blurb. nableezy - 20:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I did not directly support a blurb, I suggested another potential blurb target that didn't end up being used. The number is off here) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hold no opinion on this posting. I only request that we should not be pulling down any of our postings once posted unless we have egregious sourcing / BLP violations. As much as the cost of doing so is negligible we should be treating “pull” as a stop-press kind of event. Ktin (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Per Ktin, the whole "I don't like how this vote was decided" isn't really a great reason to remove. If the blurb is factually accurate and the article quality is up-to-snuff, then the rest of this is just sour grapes/nitpicking over hurt feelings. Regardless of how I would have voted had I voted (and if anyone has paid attention to how I vote in nearly ALL RD/Blurb votes, you can probably guess), it's up now. There's no real point in taking it down, it's not hurting anything. --Jayron32 19:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a single admin is allowed to invent a consensus then the entire structure of this place is worthless. If something did not have consensus to post and it was posted then it should be removed. nableezy - 20:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your criteria to "have consensus"? —Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it helps, we actually have an article on that. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:Consensus is of course more relevant in this discussion. "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns" is I think a key sentence here. I agree with DarkSide above that consensus can be interpreted by the closing administrator, which is what happened here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SO, for an admin, consensus means "The admin looked at all of the arguments, weighed them relative to which arguments were strongest, giving credence both to the number of arguments that agreed, but also with those arguments that had the best reasoning in terms of strongest arguments". For things that are close calls, reasonable people may disagree, and in those cases we generally don't reverse the admin that closed it, even if we think that we might have made the "close call" in a different direction. Since this decision could have gone "either way", then there's not any particularly strong reason to undo the initial close. --Jayron32 13:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While there is a policy regarding consensus, I was interested to know what the editor wanted changed to prevent ITN from being "worthless". —Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a vote. If the arguments on one side are clearly stronger than those on the other, that counts for something. (I'm not specifically asserting that in this case - but I am seeing 'consensus' being treated as a soft synonym for 'majority', which it isn't.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When arguments are mostly subjective, it devolves into a majority vote. —Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's not the case at all. Or at least the majority should be crystal clear (like, 20-2 votes in favor). This was very close in numbers which in most other places on WP (like AFD, RFCs, etc.) is taken as a "no consensus" and thus no action should be taken (though posting as RD was still available). If an admin reads a close vote and opts for one direction or the other, that's supervoting for all purposes. Masem (t) 13:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless they felt that the arguments being made in one particular direction are stronger than in the other; it isn't a supervote if one side makes arguments that are stronger (more logical, better evidence, more based in established PAGs, etc. etc.) than the other side does, the admin is supposed to take that into account. Close numerical are not always no-consensus. --Jayron32 14:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my view, there were two choices here for the adjudicating admin - either (1) post the blurb or (2) post the RD. (2) would have been basically uncontroversial to all the "voting" members (i.e. those who supported blurb were not opposed to RD), while (1) was opposed with decent if not overriding arguments by a significant minority. In my opinion (2) would have been the legitimate consensus. Anyway, this is crying over spilled milk at this point, a stale contention to an already stale post. But this type of arbitrariness over blurb vs RD will fan up every time if we don't establish more objective rules or criteria. Colipon+(Talk) 14:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the problem is that the significance standard on ITN is inherently subjective, per the following line in WP:ITNCRIT: The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting. It's difficult to determine which arguments in a significance discussion are "stronger", because ITNCRIT weighs them all equally. Of course, they list guideline principles such as news sources, depth of coverage, frequency of updates and all of that bullshit, but no posting admin is required to weigh these principles when making their decision. And if the essence of arguments on both sides amount to "I think it's significant" vs. "I don't think it's significant", then a posting admin is really left with no choice but to either count heads or supervote. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not required to, but they are allowed to. --Jayron32 14:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which I believe is the source of nuisance here, in that the consistency of application is not always... consistent. And unless we go to a more objective set of rules, we're going to continue running into grievances like these. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not really a grievance. An article got linked in a slightly different part of the ITN box, located no more than a centimeter or two above the other place where it could have been linked. If there was ever a more unneeded mountain built out of a more inconsequential molehill, I've never seen one. There's far too much text spent debating whether exactly where within a small block of text the link to a recently deceased King of Greece should have been posted... --Jayron32 15:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It us important because it sets examples that keep coming back up to haunt us when they are done poorly. We already have too many of these (like Carrie Fisher and Betty White) which get driven by popularity
I've suggested multiple times that we can add a somewhat objective requirement that blurbed deaths - outside cases where the manner if death us important like the Ukraine helicopter crash - that there should be a Legal or Impact section that linearly defines why the person was outstanding or a leader in their field. Masem (t) 16:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, you don't need to convince me. I've consistently argued, 100% of the time, in every death posting, that a death needs to have something extra to write in a blurb beyond merely that someone died. Blurbable deaths should be something that needs explanation, like an unusual death, or one with wider implications (death of a sitting world leader, assassination, unusual accident, noteworthy responses to the death). A blurb should not be an award we grant to people because they were more valuable to the world than other people, it should be a means to convey information. If we don't need to convey anymore information than that someone died (or other banal facts like their job or age when they died) then RD is better suited to such a task. Had I voted in the discussion, I would have voted for RD only... But that being said, now that the deed is done, there's absolutely no particularly good reason to pull it from the blurb section. The main purpose of ITN is to put quality articles in front of readers, nothing more and nothing less, and both a blurb and RD do that to equal effect. So, even though I would have voted differently, that doesn't mean that I think it is worth changing anything now that it's done. --Jayron32 16:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A blurb should not be an award we grant to people because they were more valuable to the world than other people... Why not? We already write articles about some people and not other people because they are more valuable -- except we use the word "notable". We do this because we serve the readers, who are interested in reading about some people but not everyone, and not all people equally. So why not give some people a blurb and not others based on the level of reader interest, or if you prefer, based on their "notability" or "value"? Levivich (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because that's too much like cultural gatekeeping; enforcing our view of what should be important enough for "extra recognition" beyond what is the bare minimum necessary to have an article at Wikipedia. Wikipedia's notability requirements are not an award of merit, they are an assessment of available reliable source information one could use to write an article. WP:GNG are only about "Is there enough good source text out there in the world to support a stand-alone article". It is not an award we grant people because we find them more interesting, important, valuable, to us personally. It's merely a standard by which we assess how much information is available about a subject to know if it is worth writing about them. ITN is not supposed to tell everyone what we think is important enough; it's supposed to show people good Wikipedia articles about things they are likely hearing about in the news. --Jayron32 17:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wow - Notability on Wikipedia is definitely not a judgement of how valuable a person or other topic is, and the fact that so many interpret it that way is a problem we continuously need to fight against. Notability on Wikipedia is about if enough other people have taken notice of a thing and produced sufficient sources for us to be able to write about it, not about its inherent worth or value. The misperception that it is about worth or value lends ammunition to spammers, paid editors, and people with a COI who are writing about themselves. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Idk I have the same @Wow reaction. Wikipedia notability is about whether reliable sources write about a subject, and reliable sources write about a subject because the subject is important or interesting, and things that are important or interesting are valuable. We don't write about something because we personally find it valuable, we write about something because the world finds it valuable. Having a Wikipedia article is absolutely a statement of importance, it's a statement that "this topic is important, people write about this topic", and when the topic is a person, well, "this person is important, people write about this person". Coverage in RS is a measure of worth or value. Levivich (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, so if you're using notability as your standard for posting on ITN, as you alluded to when you said "So why not give some people a blurb and not others based on the level of reader interest, or if you prefer, based on their "notability" or "value"?" then the notability element has been decided by the existence of the Wikipedia article; that decision was made before ITN ever happened; now with regards to why we don't write blurbs for such people, it was decided many years ago, when the RD section was created, that such blurbs would quickly overwhelm the blurb space with a bunch blurbs that just said "So and so died." which is repetitive and silly, so it was, at that time, decided to avoid that we should just list the deaths in a line at the bottom, which conserves valuable space while still containing functionally the same information. So, yes, notability is certainly how we measure the worth of reporting a recently dead person at ITN; anyone notable enough for an article is notable enough to have their death reported (so long as the article quality is good enough), and we post those deaths in the RD line. Insofar as their may be nothing extra to say, that's sufficient. If we have something extra to say, like "So and so was assassinated and replaced by so and so", then that merits a blurb, because there's something extra to explain about the death. But the primary role of ITN is to direct people to articles, a link in the RD list or a link in a blurb serves that purpose equally as well. --Jayron32 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'm convinced, sign me up for Team RD Biographies, Blurb Events. Levivich (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be on board with this change too. It's always a morbidly absurd and occasionally degrading exercise to debate whether someone who died is "worthy" of a blurb. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To paraphrase the once great and powerful Oz in his later life, aye, too sweet, we're taking over. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll also put myself in this camp. If anyone wants to create a seperate proposal for such I'll make sure to lend my support (I've been thinking of doing so myself when I can create the time to do so). DarkSide830 (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what do we do where the event is notable and a person in the event dies, such as the Ukraine minister just recently, or way back to Kobe Bryant? eg to take Bryant's death, if Bryant wasn't involved, the accident likely wouldn't have had a blurb, but with Bryant on there, it completely switched the picture. In the case of the Ukraine minister, the accident would still be a blurb (likely) due to the number of civilians killed in it, and that the minister was one of those kills only adds to it.
I'll stress that the problem with death blurbs that are not tied to notable events are due more to percieved popularity, fame, and importance, when their articles lack such information that explain their legacy or impact. Our "major figures" used to talk about "top of their field" or "transformative", and those were very strong metrics that could weed out cases of simple popularity. We need to put those qualities back on the board when deciding blurbs. That may allow more blurbs but should better prevent the mess of cases like Carrie Fisher or Betty White which mainly were driving by "she was famous" first-time postings. Masem (t) 16:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I above noted that I would agree with abolishing the death blurb principle, the clause for the posting of death blurbs relating to death as the main story is something that can easily be argued for without having to cite the clause that directly classifies it as a death blurb. For example, we burbled Shinzo Abe's assassination more or less under this principle, but even without this clause backing up posting the only real argument against posting about the death of an individual is an argument that such a person's death many not have a long-term impact, which is debatable and could certainly be argued with or without such a clause existing. I certainly agree with your point that we should be more discerning about who gets a death blurb, but could a compromise situation exist in this case. Perhaps we axe death blurbs simply on notability but also make a more concerted effort to expand upon Deaths in 2023, or maybe even have a separate box for deaths? DarkSide830 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or at least the majority should be crystal clear (like, 20-2 votes in favor): It does not say that anywhere for ITN, let alone at the WP policy WP:CONSENSUS. —Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, its not written as a P&G that way, but CONSENSUS is written that we should be cautious and close discussions as "no consensus" when questions of whether consensus was achieved are raised. Yes, a 20-2 !vote where the 20 !votes do not cite any reasonable P&G, an admin may overlook that. But on the assumption that all 20 + 2 !votes raise their points against established P&G, it would be very surprising to see that closed any other way than in favor of what the 20 !voted for. But when it is something like 12-10 !votes, under the same logic, that's far different, and the simple majority is usually not accounted for to decide there is consensus. Masem (t) 16:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you shot your argument in the foot a bit using 20-2, which is an ultra-high percentage of ITN consensus that I doubt many subscribe to. Curbon7 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering the closer cited a 2:1 ratio, hypothetical 20–2 and 12–10 scenarios are irrelevant. —Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, whatever other solution then is there for any blurb that's not a clear consensus (i.e. 10:1 as noted or perhaps somewhere as low as 5:1) nor a clear lack of consensus (presumably anywhere from 2:1 either way, exclusive)? I don't want to act high-and-mighty here or anything, but when it comes to the better portion of blurbs (even including INT/R), there's always going to be people not versed in ITN rules supporting or opposing for reasons that can't be accepted for the sake of the discussion. The last thing we need is to require some high bar in the ratio of supports to opposes to post an event to ITN, because a blurb not getting posted on a "weak consensus" like, say, 3:1 is effectively the same result as not posting at all, which should (with reason) irk those who supported the nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last thing we need is to require some high bar in the ratio of supports to opposes to post an event to ITN... We're not bending it just because a regular is unhappy that an outcome was opposite from their preferred outcome.—Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archiving outdated blurbs[edit]

Given that the number of blurbs in the ITN section is not fixed (typically ranges from 4 to 6) and that there have recently been complaints that some blurbs have been posted for more than two weeks, do you think we should start archiving outdated blurbs after certain period of time (e.g. 5, 7 or 10 days), i.e. removing them before they roll off?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN is no stranger to slow seasons, especially if there's a spate of overly strict participants at ITN/C for any extended period of time. Going this route opens up the very real probability that we may have a blank or near-blank ITN template. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s true even though a minimum number of blurbs could be set. Anyway, how is the number of blurbs determined? Why we sometimes have 4 and other times 6 blurbs?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the other sections of Main page can have different sizes. With a short TFA, we use a smaller number of ITN blurbs, for example. It is all about balance. Tone 21:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s a logical explanation, but very weird at the same time. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also WP:ITNBALANCE. —Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support archiving outdated blurbs because "balance" depends on device, screen resolution, and width which is different for every reader (and doesn't apply at all to mobile readers), and because it would discourage spates of overly strict participation at ITN/C. Levivich (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's perhaps overly optimistic that archiving old blurbs and creating whitespace will shame those with strict ITN blurb criteria, when the status quo of leaving stale content posted has not. —Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...because "balance"...doesn't apply at all to mobile readers...: It's relevant to tablets, even if not for phones. —Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It applies to phones cause you can force the real site in Android (and probably something similar for Apple) by touching symbol near address bar then Desktop site [] and that's readable zoomed out in at least some phones. If you have a 1440p phone and good eyes you can even habitually use the phone from 10 inches and occasionally from 4 inches (the best you can do at moderate myopia) and make the text as small as you can easily read without finger zooming and it looks really cool and doesn't have the excessive scrolling and text size of m. and even en.wiki but no force desktop site. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we were referring to the mobile web view, and not mobiles using desktop view nor mobiles using an app. —Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tbh when I wrote 'mobile' I really meant 'anyone using the Minerva skin'. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there definitely does seem to be a glut of very strict ITN editors. I find it absurd that we haven't posted that Kyiv helicopter crash yet, and that Jacinda Ardern's resignation waited so long to be posted that we ended up using a picture of her successor. The Yeti Airlines crash nomination attracted several people saying they didn't think the death toll was very significant - it's right that there's no minimum deaths criterion, but it was a toll which would definitely be regarded as significant if it happened in a Western nation. Wikipedia's systemic bias really manifests itself very strongly at ITN/C - and when topics about non-Western countries are proposed, there's often at least one established editor showing up to say they haven't heard of the topic, or don't think it's prominent. You know what? This an encyclopedia - you can use it to find out about these things! GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's often actually the contrary: anytime an American event gets nominated, there are at least a few people who oppose on the ground of it being Americo-centric. Curbon7 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I'm not saying whether the Americo-centric point is justified or not, I'm just pointing out that it happens. Curbon7 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get that. And I'm not saying we don't get complaints (justified or not) about posting US news. We certainly do! But we also get, for example, people positing largely novel theories of government to try and argue that the election of the Speaker of the House is already ITN/R. That's some powerful American exceptionalism right there. But I'm not really talking primarily about the content of the discussions, but about their product. It really doesn't matter if the discussion page is awash with anti-American claptrap, if the actual news feed ends up still dominated by news from Anglophone countries. And the attitude to elections in Antigua, plane crashes in Nepal, blizzards in Afghanistan, and so on frequently does reflect pro-Western biases, and is articulated not only in skewed opinions, but in experienced editors stalling the process so that those items become stale and never get posted. Far from combating systemic bias, a lot of our bureaucratic procedures (introduced for good reasons, I know) end up furthering it. To return to the Jacinda Ardern case: the mainstream news sites featured her face and her words prominently for days, but we sat on our hands until a white man showed up, and now her replacement has graced the homepage for almost a week, without any sign of her. We can and should do better than this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After the recent Vector 2022 update and the general mess on formatting (pardon my bluntness here) — I do not believe WP:BALANCE should be an issue that drives us to add / remove blurbs. Ktin (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ouch WP:BALANCE is not the right *balance* I was referring to. I am referring to main page balance that is used to justify adding / removing blurbs from the bottom of the ITN box. Ktin (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ITNBALANCE! Curbon7 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahh! Thanks @Curbon7 Ktin (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Withdrawn) Proposal: Remove "major figures" from death blurbs[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The current wording on WP:ITNRD, which serves as the information page to supplement WP:ITN's process, states as follows:

  • Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb.
  • Major figures: The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. Comparisons to deaths of prior persons (we posted John Doe, so we should also post Jane Smith, or conversely we didn't post Bill Jones, so we cannot post Susie Johnson) are rarely considered sufficient to post in absence of consensus. One should also be wary of puffery in obituaries for a recently deceased person - using terms such as "legendary", "greatest of all time", "household name", etc.

The proposal put forth would like to, at minimum, remove the major figures clause from the criteria for ITNRD entirely. This would narrow down the number of circumstances through which a death blurb would be suitable. This includes is if the death is the main story, such as resulting from a homicide, suicide, or accident. The deaths of Kobe Bryant or Shinzo Abe, for example, could be blurbed under those particular criteria. We can look back to see whether or not someone dying at an especially young age due to illness while currently active in their career would also qualify, but I'd like that discussion to be separate from this one.

There is another thing to take into consideration, which is that the "death as the main story" criterion also includes where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.). I am still uncertain about whether this should stay as well. I had always thought that this was redundant to the "major figures" criterion, since the presence of memorial services or international reactions would usually be as a result of this figure being extraordinarily transformative in a field that greatly affected humanity. If you go based off of that, we'd probably still have ended up blurbing Pele, for example, due to the massive international outpouring that occurred as a result of his death, even if his death wasn't particularly unusual. I think in order for us to have a truly clean break from the "notability->death blurb" discussion, and in particular to avoid the perception that especially famous people get "super-death treatment" on Wikipedia, this clause needs to go as well, otherwise we're just going to have the same arguments as before.

I'm convinced ITNRD was never meant to be a popularity contest, since as Jayron32 pointed out, a blurb and a recent death functionally serve the same purpose - it's a link to someone's article in the end. I also feel that we should be steering ITN/C in the direction of being more inclusive rather than less, and I believe removing these particular standards will be one small step towards larger cultural changes. If we treat everyone equally, we have fewer of these notability/significance discussions, which would hopefully encourage participants to be more open-minded about what gets stuck on the Main Page.

So I propose the following options for the community's consideration:

  • Option A: Remove the "major figures" and "memorial services/international reactions" criteria from WP:ITNRD. Blurb deaths only if the death itself is the main story.
  • Option B: Remove only the "major figures" criteria from WP:ITNRD. Blurb deaths only if the death and/or memorial is the main story.
  • Option C: Leave as-is.

I support option A as nominator. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Option C - I think we actually need to add more clarity to the Major Figures phrasing to assure that the article is of really good quality (not just sufficient to post as RD) and has a clear explanation via a "legacy" or similar section as why the person was a major figure. In addition, that popularity, fame, or well-knowness are not sufficient reasons to be considered a Major Figure. The problem we tend to have is that !votes for death blurbs are strongly influences by editors that assert the person was famous and thus should be posted, rather than focusing on the quality of an article for a major figure and that the article is very clear why that person was a major figure. Masem (t) 15:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the pop stardom fields, popularity is pretty much the metric to set major figures apart from minors. Fame is close enough to popularity in that regard. Well-knowness, I don't know. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given that your proposal indicates we would still blurb pelé, I'm not really seeing how this would change ITNC significantly. What death blurbs in 2022 wouldn't have been posted then? Probably only a couple where consensus was thin anyway (Tanaka). I find blurb arguments pretty taxing, but if you're going to say we can still blurb people because of "global outpouring", I'm sure people will still find ways to squabble over who qualifies or not. Either don't change the rules or get rid of death blurbs altogether. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I should have worded myself better. What I am saying is that if we had removed the major figures clause, but yet still kept the clause under "death as a main story" about international reactions and memorial services, Pele would have received a blurb. This is what option B entails. But if we removed both of these clauses, which is what option A entails, Pele would not have received a blurb. I'm in favor of getting rid of the global outpouring exception as well as the major figures clause, thus my selecting option A as the nominator. Hope that makes sense now. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Option B creates a problem that beloved people - but not major figures - would be given blurbs, eg cases like Betty White or Carrie Fisher where the entire Hollywood industry had outpourings for their deaths, which would fall into the allowance. Yet with someone like Gina Lollobrigida, who wasn't part of Hollywood but had probably a more significant impact on cinema, would not be blurbed due to the lack of outpouring we can find in sources. This is important that at ITN, we are fighting against the biases created by the 24/7 media that tends to focus on US and UK news over all over regions, and make sure important figures from other areas of the world get treated appropriately as well, as long as their articles are up to shape. Masem (t) 18:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A - I was convinced by Jayron yesterday in a discussion above, and will summarize what I understand to be the argument he made: "notability" should be a gate or a floor, but not a yardstick by which we measure the relative worth of people. A person is either notable or not notable, but ITN should, as a matter of policy, treat all notable people the same, rather than making any relative judgments about who is "more" notable, by, e.g., posting some death blurbs for "major figures" but not for others. Another reason I support A is that it doesn't further ITN's purpose to blurb "major figures". If someone is, indeed, a major figure, and is listed among other less-notable persons, their name will be easy for any reader to spot in the RD list, so there's no need to blurb it. For example, put "Queen Elizabeth" in the RD list, and everyone will find it just as easily as if there were a blurb. So I like the idea of "blurb events, RD biographies", aka option A. Levivich (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well intended nomination. We have had this or a variant of this discussion too many times now. I am going more and more towards the thinking that it is time to go for an algorithmic view of our homepage. The manual update nature of our main page is a relic of the 2000s and we have since come a long way then, but our main page update procedures have remained the same. Ktin (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major Figures as a rule sounds great in theory but in practice it is an empty guideline that is rarely actually enforced or really followed. It places far too much onus on the adjudicating administrator to apply legalistic reasoning when it is easier to just count the votes. The result is systemic bias - any campaign mounted by more than a handful of group of users in the Anglosphere will be sufficient to move a person up to blurbworthiness. The "precedent avoidance" guideline similarly is not applied in practice and often used by proponents of blurbing a person the nominator passionately sees as particularly notable. I do think the status quo is untenable and Option A seems the fairest to me. Colipon+(Talk) 22:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ktin: I would agree with this - I think a simple barometer of global significance is google search results in the top, say, 10 languages. If the person appears in all ten languages, there's not a shred of doubt that the person who died is globally noteworthy and hence should be posted. This would qualify Queen Elizabeth II and Michael Jackson, but perhaps very few others. It would not have qualified Carrie Fisher, Constantine II, or even David Bowie. But the practical implementation would require us to build a bot to do this; not sure anyone would want to spend the time doing so. Colipon+(Talk) 22:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Option A based on above and my comments in the prior section. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A If a major figure or someone with a huge public memorial has died, people don't Wikipedia to tell them more loudly than it announces the obscure dead, they already know. That's along with a lot of other reasons, most of which we've all read. I won't restate the obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option C Nothing is broken. Also, the discussion so far tends to point to loopholes under which major figures would anyway be blurbed (e.g if they have a big memorial service), so what's even the point? I frankly also don't believe that removing the "Major figures" clause would reduce attempts to post the death of famous people - users will still nominate them for blurbs. Lastly, as an aside, I'm a bit surprised we're trying to implement rules to post less blurbs when the general complaint is that most blurbs are already stale. Khuft (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I frankly also don't believe that removing the "Major figures" clause would reduce attempts to post the death of famous people - users will still nominate them for blurbs: Brings to mind the WP:PROPOSAL policy:

    Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.

    Bagumba (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option C WP:ITNRD is not a policy or guideline. It is an information page which documents our customs rather than being a prescriptive rule. So, if ITN blurbs major figures like Carrie Fisher, Betty White and Elizabeth II then that's what actually happens and is an established ITN custom. If some editors don't like this then they need to win the argument on the ground in those individual discussions rather than trying to change this record of the project's history. See also WP:NOTLAW, "the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus ...". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay. That response is a bit ticky-tack, in my opinion. This is the individual discussion to change the ITN custom. We're in it right now. We don't resolve changing our customs by showing up to some poor fellow's recent deaths discussion and saying "I propose that we do away with death blurbs". 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But if a couple of years go by in which we never approve a death blurb, it'd be fair to propose that its mention be scratched from WP:ITN, as it's no longer an existing practice. —Bagumba (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I get what you are saying, in that the page in question is an informational page that documents current practices, and therefore one would want to take a descriptive rather than a prescriptive approach. But in looking for a parallel, particularly an area that people already complain about being an unpleasant environment, I would submit that we would not wait until years go by in which RfA doesn't produce a single admin before we try to reform its practice. And I think changes like what I am currently proposing would hopefully be the first of multiple steps we'd take to making ITN less of a contentious atmosphere to work in, by reducing the subjectivity and thus reducing the need for debate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But I'm not convinced if its the ITN process that's contentious or a few individuals. —Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it's both, but the former has more impact than the latter. My #1 gripe about ITNC -- that editors vote based on what they think should be significant rather than what is significant -- is something that I see done by new-to-me usernames over and over again; it's not just a few individuals. Other problems (incivility) tend towards a few individuals. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think youre going the wrong way here. Because no, not all notable people are equal in terms of the coverage of their death. And WP shouldnt be pretending that they are. When somebody is the subject of obituaries in the papers of record in multiple nations and languages then they should be blurbed. Even if it is old person died. But it never even has to be old person died. You can include in the blurb why this old person was especially noteworthy. I tried that in the Pele blurb, only three time WC champion though Im sure there could have been other descriptions of him added, but that got shot down to Pele died in Brazil. But since thats never going to happen, and since its never going to be applied equally and we would still blurb some old person in some old family in some old country dying peacefully in their sleep but would not blurb some civil rights activist and sporting icon in some less old country dying peacefully in their sleep, then sure, ban death burbs entirely and put everyone in RD, from the Queen on up to Betty White in terms of importance. nableezy - 14:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A per above. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option C. Maybe we should consider tightening what we consider a major figure to be, but arguing "put "Queen Elizabeth" in the RD list, and everyone will find it just as easily as if there were a blurb" has to be one of the worst takes I've seen on this site (nothing personal of course). Curbon7 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, I think what we have, though deeply flawed, still works. The only death blurbs we post is almost always of those with overwhelming notability, like Elizabth II and Pele. Sure, maybe José Eduardo dos Santos and Jean-Luc Godard were on the margins, but the process still works. Curbon7 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why should be so concerned about this? This can just as easily be done via the search bar. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option C I'm not seeing the problem this is looking to solve. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    According to a good number of people who participate in ITN/C, it was a mistake to blurb Constantine II as we did. Or Carrie Fisher. Or Betty White. On the other hand, there have also been discussions where people feel deeply that they should have been blurbed as major figures, such as Bill Russell. As a result, we are constantly running into disagreements as to what constitutes a major figure, and that standard seems to shift based on who participates at ITN and in what quantity. I don't think that's a good way of doing business here, because this sort of goalpost-moving contributes to what people feel is a dysfunctional atmosphere at best, and toxic at worst. The problem that this proposal solves is to remove the subjectivity and the nebulous "significance" standard from a contentious area of ITN. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm wary of removing subjectivity by TNTing the major figures criteria. Ideally, we provide more objective guidance than currently exists at WP:ITNCRIT (It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits.) or WP:ITNRD The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis... People are happy when their preferred outcome can get in because of the liberal guidance, and then cry when something they oppose is made possible by the same loose criteria. A bit hypocritical. So let's settle on more objective criteria, dont WP:GAME the system, WP:AGF that others aren't either, but collectiely police those who are regularly disruptive.—Bagumba (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. As you may have noticed, for years I and a number of other editors have put forward the proposal that if the person's death and/or funeral could support a stand-alone article in addition to the main article on the person, then there should be a blurb. This is not Option B, in which sensational murders and the like would get blurbs. Likely this discussion will not result in any consensus, because the options were poorly framed and worded. Abductive (reasoning) 11:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Discussion of proposal to not blurb major figures[edit]

There's a table of prominent deaths in 2022 above which lists the 15 which were blurbed last year. As I understand option A, only three of these would have been blurbed under the proposed change:

  1. Shinzo Abe – assassinated
  2. Ayman al-Zawahiri – assassinated
  3. Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi – blaze of glory

But what about other RDs who died similar violent deaths such as Darya Dugina and Olga Kachura? Would they have got blurbs too? And Elizabeth II would just have been listed as an RD per "old lady dies", right?

As a fresh example, consider a story which is currently front page news at the NYT: The Fierce Life and Sudden Death of America’s Strongest Woman. In this case, Rebecca Lorch didn't have an article here until this appearance in the news. Kudos to Valereee for getting it started.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Elizabeth II would just have been listed as an RD per 'old lady dies', right? There's always WP:IAR. —Bagumba (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that WP:ITNRD says that it's "...an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines..." As such, it doesn't seem to be a firm rule. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although not a firm rule, my observation is that unless there is a truly overwhelming consensus along the lines of what would be expected for WP:IAR, that 99% of the time, admins will abide by the wording of WP:ITNRD and WP:ITNCRIT so long as the wording is not in itself deliberately open-ended (using words like "could" or "might", rather than "should" or "must"). Those admins that tend to stray from the beaten path will tend to find their actions reverted, or at least openly discussed in an unflattering manner. 😋 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, WP:5P5 anyways says Wikipedia has no firm rules, which applies to P&G's also, not only info pages. —Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think "violent deaths" is the applicable standard, rather the applicable standard would be where the cause of death itself is a major story. The three you listed would count. I'm not sure whether or not Dugina's death was a major story as I haven't analyzed the news coverage of it. I don't think Kachura's death would be a major story because it's "soldier gets killed in a war", which sounds to me to be pretty routine (unlike assassinations of world leaders). Levivich (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The putative standard isn't clear. Take Shane Warne for example. Initially the story was about his untimely death from an uncertain cause. This then segued into tributes and recaps of his career. This pattern is common when a famous person dies at an early age or in a dramatic way. There's no clear boundary between the death, the recent circumstances and the overall life and reports will typically cover all three. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not just Cause, but Circumstances and Consequences. That's three Cs. Easiest thing in the world to keep in mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elizabeth II's death would still count for Death as the main story as the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation. Her death was the main story as it led to national mourning, succession of Charles III, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd expect it would have been blurbed per ITNR as a change in head of state. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See President of Vietnam resigns which still hasn't been posted even though he was the head of state. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main holdup on that one is quality. —Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: You could have fixed that already by correcting the problems with the quality of the article. Had you done that days ago, instead of coming here to complain about the article not being posted, it would have already been posted. --Jayron32 12:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lực bất tòng tâm. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I think this proverb describes the experience of a lot of people on ITN) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of the three events you described (Dugina, Kachura, and Lorch) were ITN worthy. In fact, you'll notice a common thread here - all three pages you mentioned did not exist until after the subject had died. I was a passionate opponent of the Dugina article, and am still shocked her page wasn't merged into the article about her killing. Notability for Kachura also seems fringe, and Loch doesn't seem notable outside of her winning the America's Strongest Woman title, yet the article liked to on her page doesn't even mention the womens' competition. Point being, what is the issue with these noms not being posted? DarkSide830 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shireen Abu Akleh's page didnt exist prior to her being killed either and that also merited posting. For both the reason of her own impact and the fact that her death merited additional explanation. That likewise did not get blurbed. I dont think that is reasonable expectation that every blurb worthy death already has a biography on WP. WP is famously not finished after all. nableezy - 01:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When the death of people such as Shireen Abu Akleh triggers creation of an article about them, then that's a good clue that their death is the story and so would warrant a blurb, if that's the test. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's interesting that, once again, the bio article in question is almost exclusively about the events of the person's death. This really isn't the best place to argue about the merits of these individuals having bio articles, but I don't think it's absurd to suggest that the individual's notability, at least in a blurb-level sense is suspect if no one felt them notable enough to create an article about before. We have a lot of articles that are created after a person dies that are added to RD, but the fact is the level of notability of a person must be higher under most cases to justify blurbing. I'm not suggesting this needs to be a hard-and-fast rule (I supported Akleh's nom), but I think it's an indicator. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I will note that a funeral or similar ceremony can be considered a news story. If we have an article specifically about the death itself, that could be a great indication that the subject is a good fit for ITN (as it shows Wikipedia's ability to write new encyclopedic material!). Shireen Abu Akleh mentioned above can fall under that reading as well. I don't mind forgoing ITN blurbs if we only have a small little paragraph added to the article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My thinking generally aligns with Maplestrip. If there is significantly important information about the death itself (unusual circumstances, etc.) or there is a significant story about knock-on effects from the death (succession, protests/revolts, major ceremonies or funerals, etc.) then we have something to blurb. Just noting that someone died is not blurb-worthy IMHO. Most of the handwringing over things like the death of Queen Elizabeth II goes away when you realize that we blurb the death because we also blurb the succession of her son Charles III. The recent death of the Ukrainian government minister would still get blurbed under this policy because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the death, i.e. the helicopter crash. What this would avoid is the "I've heard about so-and-so a lot, so they probably "deserve" a blurb". Let's try to get away of what the person "deserves", as though they "earned" the blurb like it was an award, and lets get to writing blurbs that actually contain information that serves the reader. The RD section serves a perfectly fine purpose for reporting on unremarkable deaths. Even unremarkable deaths of famous people. --Jayron32 15:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would be slightly broader with what I include, as I would like featuring articles with extensive Death sections in general. But I definitely want to move away from the subjective "are they worth it" thing and see what encyclopedic material we've actually written on the death and impact. I would not have blurbed José Eduardo dos Santos or Thích Nhất Hạnh, but I probably still would've blurbed Shane Warne and maybe also Jean-Luc Godard? I hope I'm not adding too much ambiguity in my position, though: I really do think we should move away from phrasing it as "earning" a blurb and move towards displaying our editors' writing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am firmly of the belief that we have too many discussions about whether or not to blurb a recent death. Every time a well-known elderly actor or singer dies we get the "support blurb, legendary" !votes and it's a waste of time. A blurb line absolutely should not be a reward for being famous, and "so-and-so dies at the age of 83" tells us very little more of use than having them in the RD section. It absolutely should be reserved for those where the death is the story. We have IAR for cases like Elizabeth II or Pele who will get blurbed in 15 minutes regardless of what guidelines we have. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would love to be able to codify the "support, famous person" type !votes to be removed or ignored in ITNC discussions. Blurb discussions, beyond article quality, should be whether the article sufficiently describes the legacy or factors related to being a great figure so that we aren't arguing on unsupported claims. Masem (t) 16:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment there are a lot of words here for "I want my news ticker to only tell me sports champions and elections". The bit that needs to be redefined is "transformative figure". I don't agree with the notion that "if it warrants an article on the death itself", because that's basically saying "only inherently notable people get blurbs", and I personally don't find John C. Politician nor Queen Elizabeth II as important people in any respect outside of inheritance. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You mention David Crosby in your edit summary, bug there us a case that right now with the current state of the article, it is hand waving to claim that he was an influential musican of the 60s. If there was a clear section to talk about his influence on music and support being a transformative figure, that would be different. At least with politican leaders, they usually have this type of section to help support the reasoning for a blurb. Masem (t) 18:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well yes, his article is terrible (as was Jeff Beck's), and we can take that off the table as it's the case for RDs as well as blurbs. Politicians have that inherent notability and constant news coverage that musicians (especially the ones from the 60s and 70s that are going to start dropping like flies) don't get. Did Benedict do anything in the last 10 years? No, old man died. Was he transformative? Not at all. Pele was last active in 1974, he gets a blurb. Old man dies. This whole approach to the subject is asinine, and it becomes a pile on of gatekeepers vs. aficionados. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At least with Pele, there was (at the time if ITNC nom) a legacy section that explained, in a standalone manner, why he was one of the best football players. That eliminates the hand waving of "this person was important" that comes up so much in blurbs. Thats why I think that if a blurb is going to be on the table, the article better support the transformative or great figure in a clear, direct manner (such as a legacy section). That would exclude many bad examples that we did end up posting due to hand waved claims of importance. Masem (t) 20:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd count Benedict XVI as transformative. If he hadn't resigned, there'd have not been a Pope Francis. The papal lineage may seem just as trivial as band member timelines to a lot of people, but it's the sort of list to which others have been ascribing much importance for about 800 years. And it's not like Francis himself is chopped liver. Besides his good nature, a slightly younger list of popes pegs him as the last. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But again I ask the question: where was the sourced verification that Benedict XVI was transformative or a great leader? Certainly not in the article. Someone involved in an historically significant event is not automatically transformative for being part of that event, and so all that argument is hand waving any actually sourced material that will help readers understand why this person was mentioned in a urb on the front page. It is far more objective when we start with that basic premise. Masem (t) 00:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't ask me. I'm not saying his transformation of the Roman Catholic world had anything to do with his recent death. His death changed pretty much nothing except his own personal closeness to God. We were right to blurb his resignation when we did.
    Anyway, I'm glad you asked, as it gives me a chance to ask you where you got this idea that Lollobrigida "probably" had more impact on cinema on the woman who invented, reprised and flat-out made Princess Leia. Wouldn't you have heard of a role even half as iconic or influential? Betty White, sure, meh. But I had you pegged as someone whose life was actually changed by "the force", so what's up with that? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This is how it works on the German Wikipedia where the corresponding section is efficiently updated by a handful of editors. There is one difference, though. The section on the German Wikipedia provides more details about the deceased persons by listing their birth year, nationality and occupation. In our case, we’d have to rearrange the ITN section so that it fits, bit it’d be still be longer than it’s now. Another option that comes to my mind is to allow a death blurb only if the death is documented in a separate article (in some cases, the death article may be subject to an RfD, which may halt posting).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There a catch 22 in there as well. Articles need to be up to date and sourced, but seldom become sourced. Maybe increasing the stale limit to 14 days would help? - Floydian τ ¢ 23:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The 7 day stale limit works and more exposes how bad some of our bios on 20th century people are. That many Hollywood stars and musical articles need extensive sourcing help is a problem beyond ITN as basic BLP requirements aren't being met. Extending the time to 14 days won't fix that. Masem (t) 00:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...allow a death blurb only if the death is documented in a separate article...: I'm wary that this would incentivize people to ignore the WP:AVOIDSPLIT guideline:

    Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. Also consider whether a concept can be cleanly trimmed, removed, or merged elsewhere on Wikipedia instead of creating a new article. Some topics are notable, but do not need their own article; see WP:NOPAGE.

    I'd anticipate that many premature pages would just be lists of WP:NOTDIARY quotes of condolences and tributes.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, we have a rather large problem that editors want to run off to create standalone topics on breaking news stories which are already part of larger news stories with their own articles, and thus to justify these spin-offs, add in tons of reaction quotes, which are, IMO, complete fluff (Reaction quotes that talk about actual actions a country or agengy might take is different). If we limit death blurbs to only those with a standalone death article, we would be artificially forcing article creation while ignoring truly important figures that never would have had their death aspects covered to that much depth (eg someone like Stephen Hawking). A separate death article should be the case when there are days and days of pomp that come with it, as was the case with Thatcher, Mandela, and QEII, or in rare cases of others, like Michael Jackson. Masem (t) 05:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then, the best option is to do nothing and leave it as it is. I honestly don’t think we can replicate the model from the German Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whether ot not it's a separate article is a matter of page maintenance. ITN should only look to see if qualities for a standlone exist, and not mention a separate page as a requirement or even a plus, as some will just create to check off a box for ITN and WP:GAME the system. —Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be frank, we want people to spend less time on arguing about whether something is significant and more time on editing in the main namespace. I get that requiring a stand-alone article may spill over discussions from ITN to RfDs, but precisifying the quality requirement should be a priority if we really want to move a step forward. At the very least, we should indicate that the article needs to have a legacy section documenting why the person was truly significant in their field to merit a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We want editors not to spin out articles until necessary SIZE metrics are met - if the subtopic is searchable, we have redirects for that very reason. 90% of the time when I see such spinouts, you lose the cohesiveness of the content of the spinout being in the main article, as to have a comprehensive coverage of the topic and all its subtopics, and instead the spinout attempts to explain why it is notable on its own and floods the article with things like Reaction sections. Editors forget that notability is not based on a burst of news coverage, but requires a long-tail of that as well, a criteria we don't apply to content within the body of an existing, notable topic. Masem (t) 13:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would personally be supportive of a homepage organized loosely like the German page is, i.e. roughly replacing the material currently situated above the "Today's featured picture" box with boxes organized like the German page has them (though I also wouldn't be opposed to scaling down the picture box either - that thing is massive!). DarkSide830 (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've got my wholehearted support for this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A protype might be more persuasive. On This Day is not very well maintained lately, so perhaps that's even a candidate for some real estate. —Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems like many editors feel this is a problem we can address with a rules tweak or clarification, when in fact there is a great disagreement on the approach. For example, I think Masem's notion of a legacy section requirement is logical and well-reasoned, but I unequivocally oppose it. WaltCip is correct that rejecting "Major Figures" in favor of "Death as the main story" would make things easier, but I would favor the exact opposite approach. I imagine most editors dislike the status quo, but it's probably more popular than any specific alternate. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I ask why you can't back my idea. Death blurb need a stronger objectivity factor, and clear, sourced demonstration of why RSes consider the person a great figure or transformative, rather than throwing out personal subjective assertions, seems like a way there. Masem (t) 00:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because it would not be honored. An obvious blurb is not getting rejected for its absence, and an obvious RD is not getting bumped to blurb for it's presence. Ergo, we would only be using on borderline cases, and that is unacceptable. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I oppose any change to the existing rules on this for the time being. The nature of a 'major figure' is inherently subjective. Debate and discussion is how we work through that and arrive at a consensus. I wish we were a bit quicker at it, but I don't think having the debate is wrong. I think a lot of the proposed hard and fast rules here would entrench specific editorial biases, or introduce perverse incentives to fork off articles about deaths. The user Abductive keeps falsely claiming that we already have a rule about this, and I wish they'd stop. My actual proposals?
  • 1) Some debate around death blurbs is inevitable, and I see attempts to prevent it altogether as futile and a waste of our time.
  • 2) We should post ITN articles faster, including deaths.
  • 3) If there's clear support for some posting around a person's death, I would welcome more admins being willing to post them to RD and keep the debate about a possible blurb open.
  • 4) The actual thing in the RD rules that I like the least is that non-human organisms are included. I just don't believe that racehorses deserve the same attention as humans. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Points 1 and 3 I fully agree with, point 2 is mostly due to articles not being ready for posting when they are nominated - in the vast majority of cases this is due to sourcing issues. Point 4 is irrelevant to this discussion, but the current rules for RD were arrived at following a very big RFC and significant following discussion. That was in 2016, so it's possible consensus might have changed but as you are the only person I can recall mentioning it recently I'm not aware of any evidence of this (FWIW my opinion is that animals with individual articles are equally as deserving as humans). Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On point 4, with respect, you've got it backward. There are organisms out there that fly, glow and/or live inside others. Some are the size of buildings and some have tongues longer than their tails. Don't even get me started on marsupials! On the other side, you have the same basic Homo sapiens you've already seen do all it can. The only thing it has going for it over Sarcophilus harrisii is it's the devil we know. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But don't worry, there are others like you. They show up at the Main RD talkpage, usually IPs, usually hung up on horses. It's hard to find those Archives, though, even the regulars there don't quite know how to cite the past. I agree that'd be the venue to start banning people from learning about the recent deaths of their notable cousins. If one were so inclined, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find the tone of this perplexing, and it seems to be replying to something I didn't say. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an addendum to Thryduulf's comment about you ("consensus might have changed but as you are the only person I can recall mentioning it recently I'm not aware of any evidence of this"). It seemed "The actual thing in the RD rules that I like the least is that non-human organisms are included" was clear enough to think you and those antihorse IPs might find some common ground on Point 4 at the RD talk page. Here at the broader ITN one, I agree, it's pretty irrelevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Strike forum comments[edit]

It seems that ITN has a longstanding problem of people using candidates to make WP:FORUM posts about a given subject or topic, most recently seen under "2023 Monterey Park shooting". A notice was added to the top of ITN a little while back: Please do not [...] Use the discussion section of an item as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome of a nomination and are potentially disruptive. But it seems that this has not done anything to discourage forum, soapbox, and uncivil behavior. I believe that ITN will run more smoothly in the future if we simply strike these comments, both to prevent them from causing arguments and to discourage users from posting them in the first place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in favour of controlling the spread of WP:FORUM posts though the devil is in the detail. Who can strike out comments? Would it become disruptive to allow strike outs from any other editor? Why not just use the hat-top/collapse function? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that using the hat-and-collapse box should be the main solution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support this as a third choice. First choice: admins issue blocks/warnings for what some folks are posting in that thread. That's the least amount of editor-hours to solve the problem. Second choice: somebody please collect the diffs and propose TBAN(s) at ANI. It'll be more editor hours but at least it'll be a long term solution. Third choice: we hat/strike comments. A bandaid, but better than nothing. Levivich (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking of it in the opposite order. I considered TBANs to be the next step if editors continued to use ITN as a forum after having their comments struck. Either way, I just think there needs to be some additional measure to make ITN more efficient and less volatile. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The easiest way to make ITN more efficient and less volatile is to follow the example of the other Wikipedias where very few admins collect proposals on the talk page and post several blurbs on a daily basis with no real discussion whatsoever. As someone with a cross-wiki experience, I can say that this is most likely the only Wikipedia where editors invest a lot of time to argue whether something is notable or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I tend to agree with the issues Doktorbuk has noted. I think if we think there is a NOTFORUM issue present then we should go directly to the editors in question and simply warn them. The fact of the matter in regards to relevance is blurbs are not directly democratically decided on, and I'd assume comments that are clear NOTFORUM violations that otherwise show no clear reason for "Supporting" or "Opposing" are already ignored or at least weighted less. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who determines what violates WP:FORUM? Do you think that admins would oversee every single discussion and judge the substance so that warnings are issued? That’s a large waste of time and no-one will ever do it. In endless discussions, uninvolved admins usually come to close nominations either with or without posting and sometimes they use the hat-and-collapse box to dismiss irrelevant conversations. I think that’s enough one can expect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are comments that, without even replies, are mostly made to provoke others or express a viewpoint not directly related to ITN posting, and shutting those down before they can be responded to will help. We had a discussion on civility within the last 6 months, over this very thing, and editors have already forgotten about it. We absolutely need to be more proactive here given how fast tempers rise. Masem (t) 00:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that ITN is just a dumpster fire that likely will never be fixed without completely rethinking it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Step 1: get rid of blurbs. Just post links to articles. Step 2: votes should be limited to applying objective criteria to the topic/article (not subjective assessments like "significance"), like the objective criteria of DYK/GA/FA. For example: must be at least 1500 characters (or whatever) of prose, no BLP problems, sourced, etc. That will reduce the arguments and give closers some objective grounds for weighing votes (votes that don't apply the objective criteria are discounted). Eventually we can automate the whole thing once we train an AI chatbot. Levivich (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that "notability" is subjective, but we can't just sack it as a criteria because than in theory we'd have hundreds of objected posted in ITN a day because, well, a lot of stuff is in the news at any one given time. To me, cleaning up the forum stuff is like stepping on a cockroach - this is like burning your house down to make sure you got the darn thing. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Significance" can be expressed objectively, like: must be international news (covered by national media in at least two countries other than the nation where the event happened), or something like that. Levivich (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you support abandoning significance as a criterion and resorting to quality as all that’s needed? That’s how it is on most other Wikipedias. You’re only required to provide a sufficient update (at least, a three-sentence paragraph) so the article is good to go (after all, this is an encyclopedia). In that way, 5-6 blurbs would easily be posted every day without cheeky discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that'd be better than the dysfunctional system we have now. It's at least worth trying out. Levivich (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know people will complain that all the news stories take place in the US, though. There should probably be at least some type of backstop to prevent completely non-notable stories being posted. I support trying it though, it has to be better than this nightmare. --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as quality is the only requirement for posting and we reach a roll-off rate on a daily basis (something similar as we have for DYK), the geographical bias will no longer be a serious problem and most editors could swallow the pill of having something posted for a few hours. Under the current rules, I'm personally not fond of posting too many stories pertaining to the US or UK when the same significance criteria are applied to all parts of the world, which makes it very difficult for similar stories from some other regions to get covered because the criteria cannot easily be met. However, if quality is all that's required, people will know that inclusion depends on their work in the main namespace and would be encouraged to work there instead of wasting time to argue about significance. Take a look at what's posted in the corresponding ITN sections on other Wikipedias where quality is the main criterion for inclusion:
  • On the German Wikipedia, the first blurb is on awarding FC Bayern Munich with the Big Sport Star award for their social commitment, the second one is on a protest against the proposed criminal reform law in Spain that gathered 30,000 people, and the third one is on German Parliament's declaration of the tracking, enslaving and murdering of Yazidis by the ISIL's police in northern Iraq that began in August 2014 as genocide.
  • On the Russian Wikipedia, the first blurb is on the Monterey Park shooting, the second one is on the government change in New Zealand, the third one is on mass protests in France against raising the retirement age, the fourth one is on the Brovary helicopter crash, the fifth one is on the first annual decline of China's population in 60 years, and the sixth one is on the arrest of Cosa Nostra's mafia boss Matteo Messina Denaro, who was wanted by the police for 30 years.
  • On the Serbian Wikipedia, the first blurb is on the Yeti Airlines Flight 691 crash, the second one is on a defiling in East Sarajevo commemorating Day of Republika Srpska, the third one is on the Kaffrine bus crash and so on.
So, as you can see, abandoning significance as a criterion isn't impossible. Depending on the number of active editors, the roll-off rate differs from one to another Wikipedia, but it'd surely be on a daily basis in our case.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need something on significance to fight the systematic bias that English news is dominated by US and UK events, particularly internal grindings of the government (eg the vote for speaker of the house) that get extraordinary coverage for what little they show. The Russian list seems like it is a list picked with significance in mind, being similar to ours outside of the French riots. Masem (t) 13:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with Masem here. The almost complete last of significance in the German list was actually the first thing that stuck me when going to their page. At least with the other page the items they are posting seem significant - for pretty much each one of those pieces in the German ITN I'm left with a thought of "why should I care about this?". DarkSide830 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no shortage of news so ITN would need a radical reform to cope with the volume if the floodgates were opened. DYK demonstrates that you might easily have 10+ nominations every day and ITN's current system of open discussion can't handle that. For example, after browsing the news, I might nominate the following stories: United States debt ceiling, C/2022 E3 (ZTF), Nadhim Zahawi, Corruption in Ukraine, Joe Biden classified documents incident, etc. And that's not including the huge amount of sports news every day.
That's why I favour a more mechanical process based on readership views. That's not perfect either but it would turn over every day without us having to post so much.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Readership views are also prone to systematic bias as well as delving into topics that are not necessarily long-term events that we consider as encyclopedic topics that are based on news coverage. eg the US debt ceiling and the Biden classified documents are all mechanisms of US politics and are not yet shown to be long-last stories with any real impact. That's why we don't care that more obscure topics that are important in other parts of the world and have a quality article get posted to ITNC, even if they only draw a few extra views to it. ITNC is not there to report the popular news stories, but encyclopedic topics that happen to be in the news. Masem (t) 13:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One suggestion I have, if we wanted to strike notability/importance from ITN completely, is to base blurbing almost entirely on the quality of the article written. Blurbing every instance of excellent Wikipedia writing on news topics would refocus our aim on what really matters for Wikipedia itself. It will also increase motivation for editors to write high-quality articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would almost guarantee widespread systemic bias on ITN, as the majority of high-quality articles that would be posted would necessarily originate from the United States and United Kingdom, due to the widespread number of editors who operate in and around those areas. As a result, stories from other nations in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, etc. would be disfavored. Beyond just the regional bias, it would also heavily favor sports, gaming, and political news. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DYK works on a similar basis, and doesn't experience too bad a bias issue in my experience. Moreover, a lot of newly created sports and progaming articles are pretty bad table-spam and wouldn't make it on the frontpage anyway. Maybe that would change, and if so, yeah, I can definitely imagine ITN becoming too heavily inundated with them. If we do away with the idea that ITN features only "important" things (something none of the other items on the frontpage claim), maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing at all? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I absolutely agree with you in theory, particularly on the notion that ITN needs to become more diverse and inclusive. The topic selection at the moment is frankly rather dull: one transfer of political power, two political elections (one of which is already quite firmly in the past), and two disasters. At the same time, it will be difficult to reach a consensus on this proposed idea due to the recurring WP:NOTATICKER mantra combined with the usual general resistance to change. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do believe that the idea that we shouldn't judge significance goes hand-in-hand with NOTATICKER. We shouldn't list news stories because they are in the news, we should list them because we wrote good articles on them! But of course the resistance to change and concerns about what types of articles we would run, are very understandable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't write good articles about topics in the news. It's not even really possible to write a good article on a breaking news story. We have a hard time writing barely acceptable articles about breaking news--its not uncommon for significant stories to not be posted because of quality. ITN is not a place to showcase quality because there's not enough time to write a quality article and often not even very good sources to use for breaking news right after it breaks. Levivich (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that was entirely true, I would suggest getting rid of ITN entirely, but there's still a certain level of acceptable quality we can reach. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean a plain ol' "good article" or a WP:GOODARTICLE? —Bagumba (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)