Wikipedia talk:In the news: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

5
Wikipedia talk:In the news: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia


Line 199: Line 199:

:Makes sense for things that will be blatantly controversial, such as the Indian temple. Marking every instance of AP2 is likely not needed. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 23:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

:Makes sense for things that will be blatantly controversial, such as the Indian temple. Marking every instance of AP2 is likely not needed. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 23:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

:I might only add them if there is clearly statements bordering on violating the terms that those CTOP banners cover. I think implicit in working at ITN is that editors should be aware of the general types of restrictions that Arbcom and the community has placed on certain topics. [[User:Masem|M<span style=”font-variant: small-caps”>asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

:I might only add them if there is clearly statements bordering on violating the terms that those CTOP banners cover. I think implicit in working at ITN is that editors should be aware of the general types of restrictions that Arbcom and the community has placed on certain topics. [[User:Masem|M<span style=”font-variant: small-caps”>asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

== Inclusion of [[G20]] in [[WP:ITN/R| ITN/R]] ==

The [[G20]] is a notable event where the top 18 powerful nations gather (and various heads of organisations like the [[UN]], [[EU]], and [[African Union|AU]]) to discuss various issues. [[G7]] is already there in [[WP:ITN/R| ITN/R]] under Economic and political summits , so why not [[G20]]? [[User:Harvici|<span style=”font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;”>Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:Harvici|<span style=”color:#228B22″>”talk”</span>]]) 11:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

College Football Playoff isn’t in the ITN/R but March Madness is. Both of these sports aren’t that important such as the NFL and NBA. There has been controversy about this thing going on right now in the nominations page, but I think it’s time to get rid of March Madness from ITN/R since the viewership of CFB is much more higher than CBB and CFP is bigger than March Madness. 2601:2C2:500:A440:4C4A:D068:7C9A:566C (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment I think this shouldn’t be on ITN/R for multiple reasons (e.g. amateur event, business vs sport etc.), but we had similar discussions about revising its status last year. You should better check them carefully so that we don’t go in circles and finally end up with a moratorium on this.–Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ITNR is not an all or nothing proposition. Not every college sport may qualify just because one does. There are other considerations besides viewership. US college football/basketball athetes are little different from the “pros” other than they don’t get a salary. If amateur status means that it shouldn’t get as much attention, tell that to the millions of fans and reliable sources that cover it. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Removal. I think this says more about the CFB Finals being worthy of ITN then March Madness not being so. March Madness is more then just a viewing experience. I’d go as far as to say it’s a cultural experience. A several weeks long basketball festival if you will. And viewership numbers are misleading here. The CFB Championship garnered ~17.2 million viewers last year. Yes, the March Madness final had only ~14.7 by contrast, but that was only one game. The first round also had ~8.4 million. Add all the rounds up and the viewership is easily higher. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I’m not an American, and don’t care about American football at all, but I do feel User:331dot and others have a point. College football seems to me to be amateur in name only, and to be a major sport in the US. We have lots of obscure sports on ITNR – it mightn’t really hurt adding this, and it might probably be of use to the American users of EN wikipedia (and to those who say wikipedia should be global: of course it should be, but that doesn’t mean we can’t nod from time to time to regions that have significant amounts of users). Khuft (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. If you’re going to take the Boat Race out of ITN/R on the basis that it’s an amateur student event of limited interest, then there is no real argument for keeping this one. DarkSide830, you say ‘it’s a cultural experience’: so was the Boat Race – and it had a hell of a lot more history to it too; I find it funny you voted to drop the Boat Race but keep this event. My thoughts on this amateur event can be summed up as “I fail to see anything in reading up on this event that demonstrates its importance even within the context of rowing basketball, much less sports and society as a whole”, which was your rationale for removing the BR. The two are similar enough to draw a parallel in removing this for the same reasons. I’m sure this proposal will get voted down by the weight of US editors piling on to vote keep, but there is no reason to keep this one at ITN/R – SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I voted to drop The Boat Race because it’s niche as all get out. Basketball is a top 10 sport in popularity by basically any metric you can find. Not only is rowing not a high-interest sport, the Boat Race was neither a global nor a national level championship. It’s a competition between two schools. I mean, posting The Boat Race might be like posting Army-Navy, which actually attracts about the same viewership. March Madness is notable for the cultural impact, but it’s also well more popular in the context of one of the most globally popular sports. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Boat Race is limited to the same two schools every year. March Madness is an open 68-team field. This argument is a tired one pushed entirely by those salty about the Boat Race’s justified removal. The Kip 05:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They should both be ITN/R because they’re both incredibly popular and get a massive amount of media attention (far more than several ITN/R sports items, though that’s not hugely relevant). But also, as stated above, it’s not all-or-nothing with college sports, and also also, ITN/R is dumb. — Kicking222 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. Not that I expect it to actually happen… we argue about this every year but somehow “March Madness” got itself ensconced in the ITN/R and is very difficult to dislodge… but no harm in continuing to try. College sports shouldn’t be included for the same reason as the FA Cup and other “secondary” events within a domestic sporting system should not. We don’t even regularly blurb all of the European top-tier football leagues, and those certainly attract a lot of fans too.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove We shouldn’t be posting sporting events involving students since they are amateur gameplay. We should include the top levels of competition for each country and the world. Including American college sports opens up a big can of worms about college events in other countries. Popularity does not mean something should be blurbed. ITN is not a news ticker. I’d agree with what Amakuru stated above. Noah, AATalk 15:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t see what can of worms you are talking about. If there are other college events with similar levels of popularity / notability as the NCAA basketball tournament or NCAA football championship, then we can blurb those as well. We are not all of a sudden going to post some random other college event. What several here don’t seem to understand is that NCAA basketball and NCAA football have levels of popularity and cultural significance in the US as much as (or even more than) top-level professional sports. I suspect there are more viewers and followers of NCAA basketball or football than MLS or MLB. If we restrict sports events blurbs to only professional events, then that is fine, but we cannot just say that because college sports is amateur level, they receive less interest. Natg 19 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove March Madness bracket pools are a cultural phenomenon in the US. The level of engagement for this cannot be overstated – everyone from toddlers and grannies are involved. The vast majority of entrants know nothing about the competition and have watched zero regular season games. By the end of the first weekend though, most brackets are “busted” and interest wanes. By the time the final occurs two weeks later, very few people are still engaged. If you stopped ten Americans on the street, you’d be unlikely to find one that can tell you last year’s champion. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment this was discussed in March/April (March/April 2023), with a no consensus closure: Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_100#Potential_removal_of_March_Madness_from_ITN/R. Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Consensus can change.–Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Not disagreeing per se, just noting the previous discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I noted that there were discussions in my first comment immediately below the original post. Agreed on adding the links, but the outcomes may sound a bit suggestive. Let editors visit the links to digest the whole discussions.–Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retain WP:ITN/C#Please do not… Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive. We have gone over this again and again. There’s no reason to prohibit amateur competitions at ITN for being amateur other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But no-one seems to be saying it’s because of a single country – the rationales so far are about it not representing a high enough echelon of sport. As to IDONTLIKEIT, I don’t think that’s the case at all either. Straw men arguments aren’t going to sway my opinion or anyone else’s probably. – SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You made an argument comparing March Madness to The Boat Race, which is a different logical fallacy. I don’t expect to change IDONTLIKEIT votes, just to point them out for whoever judges the merits of the arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I’m sorry you seem to be going round in ever decreasing circles with this: I did not make a comment based on IDONTLIKEIT, despite the number of times you try and say so. Your time may be better spent arguing a positive case, rather than trying to trash others, because that line isn’t working out. – SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I tend to agree with SchroCat on this. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be the main label for a view that someone doesn’t agree with. We don’t explicitly prohibit posting amateur sport events, but the fact that something is ‘amateur’ indicates that there’s something ‘professional’ at a higher level. That being said, the argument that we shouldn’t post amateur sport events is absolutely valid.–Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @SchroCat: I don’t see where Muboshgu is calling out your comment? The IDONTLIKEIT point was generally about people’s opinions on amateur sports and ITN. That’s a line of argument which has been made by multiple people here and in the related ITNC discussion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I’m not sure there is anything to be gained by going even further off at a tangent with this, except to say that I did not say he did say that. I was simply stating that my !vote was not IDONTLIKEIT, and that such a lazy line of argument shouldn’t be used, but instead a positive comment about why this story should be included might be more profitable. I don’t think pulling on this particular string is going to increase the effectiveness of the thread as to whether to remove or keep the story at INTR. – SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed my IDONTLIKEIT comment was about opposition to this item in general. The logical fallacy of comparing this to The Boat Race is all on SchroCat. ITN should be about posting quality articles of interest to at least some group of people. Nothing is going to be of interest to everybody and yet so several oppose votes seem to be looking for that level of unanimity, making this place quite unpleasant and unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So people holding a different opinion to you makes it unpleasant and unproductive? Humbug. If there was more of a fixed rationale as to the type of article that should and shouldn’t be at INTR (or, heaven forbid, at ITN at all), it might remove much of the opposition to business events pretending to be a third-rate sporting contest. Put criteria in place first and the rest falls away. It’s not necessarily about ‘unanimity’, but in avoiding the silly double standards on display here. And thanks, but there’s no logical fallacy, just an unwillingness to see the parallels; and I don’t want to take the credit for drawing those parallels: they were being drawn last year when this was discussed and the BR was being removed. It’s a lot of people drawing the same parallels for you to be pointing the finger at me. – SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Not what I said. If only people can accept that the news items they don’t like can still be posted because others are interested in them, it might be more pleasant and productive at ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So you don’t like people having an opinion that differs from yours, I get it. But that’s not the grounds on which I’m commenting here. Having a structure or criteria for posting might be one way of avoiding the current insular culture that votes on its own IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT criteria while bemoaning the input of people who don’t try and keep their fiefdom to themselves. – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    If you’re gonna misrepresent what I say, why should I respond any further? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    You don’t have to reply to anything, but I’m not misrepresenting anything. You have a view of how you want ITN to work, but so do others, but trying to say it’s unpleasant when people give their opinions is neither here nor there: no-ones single opinion should be ignored just because you don’t like it. – SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This may be a good time to drop the stick and stop bludgeoning the very dead horse. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    A comment was directed at me; I answered it. Feel free to step away if you wish. – SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait I maintain that removal will be easier in the fall. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retain I don’t see the logical reasoning for keeping amateur sports out of ITN. (“But they’re amateurs!” is not a logical reason.) Folks, ITN exists to serve Wikipedia’s readers by showcasing what’s in the news. If a sporting final is prominent, let’s post it. March Madness certainly qualifies, and I’m very open to seeing a case made for those “European top-tier football leagues” mentioned above when the next one comes around. The last thing ITN needs to do is post less. +1 to Muboshgu as well. Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I’d also note that in 2023, the men’s and women’s March Madness finals averaged around 14 and 10 million viewers, respectively. The men’s broadcast was one of the most-watched broadcasts in the US in 2023, beating every single game in the NBA Finals. The NBA is the US professional basketball league and its finals are ITNR. Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • ITN has never been a popularity contest, as people keep telling Andrew every time he points out which are the most popular pages on news reports. Third tier sports just aren’t suitable for ITN, and all those who clamoured for the Boat Race to be removed. “The Boat Race March Madness pales in comparison to most of the other entries on ITNR” as someone opined in the BR removal discussion. There are double standards being applied on this point, as there is a close parallel between the two stories. I don’t have an axe to grind over the Boat race, but it’s disingenuous to try and ditch one and retain the other: that’s where an IDONTLIKEIT vibe is showing up. – SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        ITN is very clearly a popularity contest. The trouble is that the voters are just a handful of self-selected editors who do not represent our millions of readers, the population in general or any objective criteria. So, for example, women are usually unrepresented and that’s one reason that sport gets undue weight. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Very frankly, SchroCat, it’s more of an WP:IDHT vibe. 🙂 Thanks for weighing in. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea what you’re trying to say with that comment, but never mind. – SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Last discussion was at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 100 § Potential removal of March Madness from ITN/R, less than a year ago. Closed as “No consensus”. There was another one just a few months before that at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 98 § Verify status of NCAA Basketball for ITN/R—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Related RfC At Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 99 § (Closed) Request for Comment: Amateur sporting events, the conclusion was:

    There is consensus against a blanket exclusion of amatuer sports at ITN.

    —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Another straw man. No-one is arguing for a blanket ban: it’s a focused discussion on one entry. – SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    No-one is arguing for a blanket ban…: Others above have cited other amateur events not being posted as reason to remove this one. —Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Saying other amateur events have not been posted isn’t the same as saying there’s a “blanket ban”. Even the Boat Race, which is now removed from ITN/R, might be eligible for inclusion if someone happened to nominate it and it happened to find consensus. I’m not even sure “blanket ban” is a concept that exists at ITN. It might be like WP:ITN/N – the never list as opposed to ITN/R, the recurring list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    To clarify, my point was that others saying amateur evert XYZ wasn’t posted seem to be implying that all amateur events should not be posted. Nonetheless, at a minimum, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST applies. Argue this event on its own merits (or lack thereof). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    And my intention is to remove it from R in the fall, neither ban nor exclude it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    +1 on that from me. – SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CFP is rejected every year for being amateur, local, and not top tier in attention or competition. When people point out those same arguments apply to CBB, the response is OTHERSTUFFEXIST or IDONTLIKEIT. I’m okay with ITN not posting either or posting both (and TBR, too), but we should have consistency as a project. That requires considering “the kind of things we post.” Arguing each event on its own merits is the problem; people decide whether or not they personally LIKEIT, then find the argument that supports that position. Since reasonable arguments can be made in either direction, it becomes a vote count. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    CFP is rejected every year…: except when it isn’t—Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2020 § (Posted) 2020 College Football Playoff National Championship—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really making the point you think you are there. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Every year”. Right.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You used the word yourself – “except”. Duly signed, WaltClipper (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one thing that the basketball finals have over the football ones is that it *is* a proper tourney, with 64 teams vying for the title and most of those are based on statistically-best performance over the season, whereas even with next years’ football being increased to 12 teams, the invited teams are still primarily going to be from the coach/press-picked top teams (which like this year can leave out undefeated teams in favor of bigger schools). However, I also think that with basketball being a more worldwide sport, that in terms of importance it is not one of the top pro-level competitions so we should not include it. Masem (t) 15:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Importance” is not necessarily tied to being “top pro level”, which is why the prior RfC had a consensus against excluding all amateur sports from ITN. And there’s no ITN guideline on what a “proper tourney” entails.—Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 to Bagumba’s comments just above. These are made up bars created for this article to hurdle. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another +1 from me. It’d be nice if we can just stick with “quality article of sufficient interest to at least some identifiable group” rather than invent our own personal criteria, which often are simply IDONTLIKEIT (“It’s not ‘top level’! It’s not a proper tournament!”) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a mirror image of the IDONTLIKEIT voters at the Boat Race delisting. Pick a standard and stick to it, because there are double and triple standards being applied all over the place here. – SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn’t support delisting The Boat Race. I do agree that too several ITN voters apply inconsistent logic. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Importance is clearly and objectively defined by the professional level and breadth of competition of the championship. One might be arguing popularity for these college events, but Wikipedia purposely ignores popularity for determination of most content. Masem (t) 18:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Importance is clearly and objectively defined by the professional level and breadth of competition of the championship: Where is that consensus? —Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its not consensus, it should be common sense that these are objective measurements to whether a competition is important or not. Or at least, stressing that popularity is not the guideline for WP is a common aspect in P&G like WP:NOT and WP:N as well as ITN’s own guidelines. Masem (t) 20:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose removal. If users don’t understand how this tournament is different than the Boat Race, they quite frankly have no business commenting here. For one, March Madness includes 68 teams that have to qualify for the tournament. The Boat Race is a competition between two schools. We never put the Army-Navy football game or Duke-UNC CBB game on here. Jessintime (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
”they quite frankly have no business commenting here”. Ummmm… No. No, no, no, no, no. Don’t try and marginalise people from commenting just because you disagree with them. Someone can easy say ‘If you’re not able to understand where the similarities lie, you shouldn’t be here. This type of comment goes completely against all that WP used to be about. – SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though Jessintime’s tone is poor, I agree with their sentiment. The Boat Race is a scheduled event between two set schools with limited scope, and limited interest, compared to basketball and American football. The NCAA basketball final (March Madness) and the college football playoff final are tournament style, with several schools involved. The only parallel between the two is that they are amateur (not professional) events. If we posted events such as El Clasico or the Army-Navy football game or Duke-UNC CBB game, then I might support The Boat Race being on ITNR. Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does the Boat Race have to do with anything? It isn’t in ITN/R anymore. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People keep citing its removal as reason for why March Madness should be removed as well, despite the two events having almost nothing in common besides being amateur in nature. The Kip 05:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose removal per Jessintime’s vote, and simply the fact this is a massive, popular event with widespread secondary coverage. This is very quickly turning into a ridiculous revenge push from those still holding a grudge over The Boat Race. The Kip 05:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • …I think it’s time to get rid of March Madness from ITN/R since the viewership of CFB is much more higher than CBB and CFP is bigger than March Madness. Flawed WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST logic. It can be that the error is CFB not being in ITNR, not that basketball doesn’t belong.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I fully am on this side of things. I think we’ve created a lot of silly arguments that have kept CFB off ITN in recent years that then serve as jumping-off points towards attacking other items such as March Madness. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose removal Widely covered, players come from not just the United States. but all over the world, international interest. Has had quality articles the past several years as well. SpencerT•C 05:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it time to think of incentivizing reviewers in some form? Did some number-crunching on non-blurb nominations last night. In 2023, we received an average of ~120 nominations each month and our posting ratio was ~60%. In 2022, we incidentally received the same average of ~120 nominations each month, but, our posting ratio was ~80%. (Link to summary: here)

There are quite a few things going on here.

Posting admins: We do know that the number of posting admins is low. I have not crunched those numbers to see if they have improved (or declined, or remained the same) in the second half of 2023.

Article reviewers: Empirically, I see that the number of article reviewers per nomination (non-blurb nominations) has reduced. Should crunch the numbers to see how this has changed.

Time-to-first-comment and Time-to-post: Somewhat linked to the above, empirically, I see that this has declined (i.e., time has increased). Have not done the numbers here, but, I suspect this is tied to the above point i.e., decline in article reviewers.

Would love to unpack the numbers. My personal sense is that we need to incentivize reviewers, or the other way round — force nominators to assist with the reviews. E.g., QPQs that the DYK project relies on.

PS1: I do know that a higher percentage of our 2022 nominations were also nominated on the Wikicup board and can explain a higher % of conversions that year.(~80% thru October 2022, and ~68% in November-December 2022)
PS2: I also know that conversion % is most directly explained by nominators not going through and addressing quality issues.

@Usernamekiran and @Thriley or even others, if you folks have a few cycles, I might love to to take your assistance in crunching some of the above numbers. Ktin (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m not convinced a lack of reviewers is the problem. It only takes one person to point out that an article is sub-par, but several of them never get significantly improved beyond the state in which they were nominated. Nominating and reviewing is relatively trivial, improving and referencing is hard. Stephen 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with almost all of what you have written. You might be right about the first statement as well. I think getting some of those additional data-points might tell us something more. Ktin (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember when Meat Loaf and David Crosby didn’t make it to RD due to lack of community interest in sourcing. I’ve thought it might be wise to identify well-known individuals – former heads of state, musicians, film actors, etc who are at risk of dying soon and preemptively fix their articles up so there is less to do when they die. Citing every film, song, award can be tedious, especially with a seven day or less window. Thriley (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with this has been lax following of BLP, which requires mire immaculate sourcing compated to other topics. Typically more common with celebrities compared to politicans, athleyes, and academics. We need editors in the areas of music and entertainment to know undersourced articles arent acceptable while BLP applies (while they are active in their careeres) Masem (t) 23:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, but some of these articles and their lack of sources go back to the early days. Meat Loaf was created in 2002 and Crosby in 2003. It often seems that people who had most of their career pre-internet have the most trouble getting to RD. Thriley (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you counting RD nominations? RDs almost never get the interest of a blurb, unless the RD is itself also up for a blurb. I think that most RDs nominated have quality issues. I’ve said in the past that RD should be split from ITN/C completely (perhaps there can be an RD/C), which can possibly drive interest in RD article improvements since it might have a dedicated project page. JM (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:RD/C is taken. But yeah, something like that I support. I’d also like to (one day) see Politics get its own special bubble. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, at this point-in-time, all non-blurb nominations on WP:ITNC are RDs. That said, I do not think being a part of WP:ITNC is the problem. In fact, if anything I might hypothesize that separating will further reduce the availability of reviewers. Ktin (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The nominal incentive at ITN is an {{ITN notice}}. This credit at ITN is supposed to go to the nominator and the creator/updaters of the article. But consider the current headline article: Abdication of Margrethe II. The person who did the bulk of the work for this was Peter Ormond. But they got no credit. The nominator did no work on the article but they got no credit either. So, there’s no functioning incentive for article work at ITN.
ITN compares poorly with DYK, where lots of new articles are created, nominated and posted every day and they all go through a reasonably thorough review process. Lots of editors seem to do this specifically for DYK. They get updates during the process and a formal acknowledgement when the article is posted, as it usually is. There’s then a variety of stats and tables and even a Hall of Fame. The OP provided some ITN stats but there seems to be no equivalent kudos or egoboo.
Andrew🐉(talk) 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can nominate any new article about any topic to DYK. You can’t do that for ITN. I can nominate UAAP Season 86 basketball tournaments (when it was a new article and I work on it having prose) at DYK and it will be posted. I can’t expect the same article be posted here at ITN lol.
ITN blurbs also stay for days. There are no shortage of ITN reviewers because of this (this is also why nobody reviews RDs, unless a blurb is in play). As what you have demonstrated here, non-ITN blurbed articles that were in the news still get tons of views over articles which are actually listed. Therefore, a “spike” in views cannot be mostly attributed to its Main Page appearance.
DYK reviewers actually have a shortage of reviewers, that’s why they force nominators to review someone else’s nomination. A “spike” in views from a DYK article is almost always due to its Main Page appearance; the same cannot be said for ITN. That means their stats and tables are mostly attributed to its appearance in the Main Page.
I suppose ITN regulars don’t really care about these “blurbs”, as they all well know that not all articles are created equally, at least when ITN is concerned. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lack of reviewers is the result of a deeper problem, which is that too several of the current reviewers will squash any nomination for the smallest of flaws. Sorry, but “I see an uncited sentence” is not a good reason to keep an article off the front page. Neither is “the update is only one sentence long”. Minor problems like that are more likely to get fixed if the article appears on the front page, where more editors will see them. Instead, the squashing of new articles results in an ITN that is constantly stale, and has the self-reinforcing effect of demotivating potential contributors. The current ITN—which sometimes clings to entries for multiple weeks after they’ve left the news cycle—is really a sad shadow of what it was at its inception, when “entries were created and put on the Main Page within minutes” of the relevant news items. Remember: we aren’t curating articles to go into a museum. If an article appears on ITN that you think is subpar, then fix it yourself or promote a different article so that the article you don’t like falls off the front page faster. Don’t throw every nomination into the trash while waiting for perfection. Einsof (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one expects perfection, and there is no deadline for posting items. I don’t think eschewing quality to get more items posted is in the project’s best interest. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lack of reviewers is the result of a deeper problem, which is that too several of the current reviewers will squash any nomination for the smallest of flaws It doesn’t seem like there is a “lack of reviewers” if there are enough reviewers who “squash” nominations by investing time to identify points of improvement. It’s more of a lack of persistent editors to follow up. —Bagumba (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaving up stale items is itself an act of eschewing quality that is not in the project’s interests. Einsof (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think at some point recently you guys switched from “top news” to “new news” as as organizational system and I just wanted to say I really like it. It seems more NPOV and it keeps the page fresh and above all it seems to cast a wider net, which I personally think is good. so…cheers! jengod (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There’s been no specific switch. The apparent improvement is just a consequence of what happened to be in the news and who showed up to nominate and support it. One factor may be the increase in international tension due to religious and nationalist conflicts, climate change and economic instability. We may live in interesting times… Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:ITNSIGNIF remains open-ended:

It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.

—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going off one of the !votes for the Emmys, it seems to make sense that for stories that are to be blurbed, that if we cannot get agreement whether to post a blurb nomination (not ongoing nor normal RDs) within a few days of the actual event, less than the current seven that we allow for, that we should close that nomination and move on, because it doesn’t make sense to pose blurbs that are already a few days stale.
Now, that triggers a lot of other ideas, such as specifically putting RD noms into their own section so it is clear their 7 days period still holds, that we make sure that we’re using the date that an event breaks in the mass media to judge the date of a blurb, that we encourage articles to be at a higher quality state before ITNC nomination for a blurb to avoid waiting on quality improvements to catch up with consensus on significance, and possibly even start considering to lower the bar a degree for posting blurbs as long as the article is already at high quality when it enters the queue (This might also reflect on RD Blurbs, that the article should be at a high quality point with minimal fuss if we’re to consider that). There’s probably a whole host of issues I have not considered so I am only tossing out this idea of potentially limiting the time for consideration of blurbs, and see if there’s any brainstorming around that.
I should add this should not be a reason to post blurbs faster for events that have just happened and that we are waiting for more details to have a better article, as oft in the case of natural disasters or mass killings. — Masem (t) 01:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ITNA allows leeway for addressing quality issues:

Nominations with “fixable” opposition (e.g. the nominated article needs more references) should be allowed to remain open.

Being that blurbs are infrequently posted as it is, while stale blurbs remain on the MP, I don’t support raising the bar further. —Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might support separating blurbs and RD (as usual), even if its just separating them into separate sections on ITN/C. No comment on the rest of the proposal. JM (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Some events have continuing coverage which lasts longer than a day while others just have a brief burst. Per WP:NEWSEVENT, we should not emphasise the latter. Having a seven-day window may help in deciding which is which.
RDs usually just have a brief burst of coverage when the death is announced and the readership usually spikes on the announcement and then falls off rapidly. It’s only the deaths which are controversial or high-impact which generate continuing coverage and interest.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RDs are a “whole other story”, as they require no actual story. A classical manager whose RD is sourced to a fine-but-late newsletter or website is just as eligible after however several days as a pop songbird from 1970s America (The Loudest Generation). But yeah, a blurb (even a death) starts Weakensupporting from the moment it’s reported if there’s no articulable impact on people beyond those pictured (and theirs). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is that we’re supposed to be reporting what’s “in the news”. Take a case like Melanie (singer). There’s currently coverage but I don’t expect it to last long and so, unless some surprising detail emerges, her death won’t be in the news for long. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That’s the pop songbird I meant, but my point is that we’re not supposed to consider whether RDs are in the news. Plenty have been posted with one obit, sometimes not even from a “real” newspaper, several days after all has been said that can be. What only matters for that third of the box is whether the article sucks. Items in the other two sections are held to higher standards, for reasons that have never made sense to me but reasons I nonetheless believe exist and make sense to others since 2016. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I understand, the reason is that RDs already have a notability threshold (“has a Wikipedia article”, which implies the subject is GNG). Although on the other hand, blurbs with new articles associated to them don’t always pass ITN significance, so I’m just as confused as you. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t claim to be confused, just saying these here reasons have never made sense, to me. That’s also not to say I think following the consensus apparently determined back when doesn’t make sense. It does, regardless of how the winning side came to vote as they did. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any existing bio (presumably already notable, by virtue of page existing) being inherently significant enough for RD was a compromise to address persistent squabbles on who was “notable enough” for an RD post. —Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that Melanie (singer) has been posted now, seven days after the nomination. This made little difference to the readership, which is mostly driven by the subject being in the news. In such cases, it’s best to post immediately as this helps alert experienced editors to the hot topic while it’s getting lots of attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was posted on 31 Jan 10:43, and even with only about 1/2 day on the MP that day, the readers increased by ~13,000 from the prior day, and that’s not even accounting for readership naturally declining daily since her death was announced. There is definitely some impact to the readership from being on the MP. —Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t see how this will work, reducing the timeframe for posting blurbs will mean that we will either have rushed blurbs, or less blurbs in general, which isn’t ideal in either case. ITN’s problem is certainly not that we have too several old blurbs that are posted, if anything they already get less attention and can easily get forgotten if consensus isn’t there after 2 or 3 days. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 10:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree. If we have older blurbs in the box then anything newer should be on the table, IMO. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One procedural barrier is that old nominations are swept off ITNC by a bot after 7 days. In theory, a blurb deemed significant but lacking quality seems like it can be given more time than 7 days if older blurbs still remain on the MP. We just need to agree on the logistics of where to place the nom after 7 days. —Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we just create a new page for those noms? Either way, I don’t think that issue in particular is a major one. We don’t always have a blurb that is older than a week anyway. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree that it’s not major. If we want to fix it, something will come up. Until then, it’ll continue to be auto archived, and effectively out of sight. —Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have data on how often this scenario happens? I do not recall seeing much of this happening. Ktin (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To throw another idea, particularly given something like the current story on the PM Khan that’s taken time to clean up, I might think that for ITNR items which we know well in advance they will happen on a specific day or around a set of days (For example: the upcoming Super Bowl (Sunday after next), or the NBA Finals (which take from 4 to 7 games to complete)) that it should be expected that the article is all but there save for summarizing the event itself (a recap of the game, the summary of an awards show and its presentation, etc.) If the article is nowhere close (as for example the recent tennis article) and doesn’t improve within a few days of the event, that will grow stale quickly.
On the other hand, for events that happen, ITNR or not, where it was not expected or did not have a clear time frame, then a full 7 day run should be allowed for article improvements. — Masem (t) 05:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The oldest ITN blurb on the MP currently is already 2+ weeks old. It’s not an improvement to further discourage more recent items from being posted. —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve added WP:CTOP banners to the Eagle Pass standoff, the Ram Mandir inauguration, and the Red Sea Crisis noms (not the SA v. Israel case for that was added by Joseph2302 (talk · contribs), a trend that I noticed was started by Nablezzy (talk · contribs) some months back (even before the current situation).

I know that there has been chatter for this in the past (1 2) and I think that we should move towards making this a standard practice. Most of the topics that we delve into as Wikipedia’s news section concern these very topics and are as such equally susceptible to disruptive behavior. Doing this might help squash WP:FORUMy and WP:BATTLEGROUND comments that ITN is all too well known for. — Knightoftheswords 18:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ram Mandir definitely needed it, because people were warned and blocked for violating the India/Pakistan sanctions. My general thought is that if we’re going to enforce contentious topic restrictions on WP:ITNC then users should be warned about it, rather than having their comments removed/hatted because they violated a rule they might not know about. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like this idea, and I like Joseph’s suggestion as well. HOWEVER I have to push back on the Eagle Pass nom. I guess it generally makes sense, but having all of American political content semi gatekept seems crazy to me. I guess if we are going to make a point of pointing out/enfocing CTOP then I guess we have to do ALL of it, but as the discussions on ARBAP2 show, a lot of stuff can qualify as US politics if you try hard enough to make it. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Applying a CTOP banner on any ITN item that even slightly falls under the realm of American politics is dirty pool, contrary to WP:CREEP and also with the intention of creating a chilling environment. It should only truly be necessary if actual disruptive behavior occurs, which might then prompt the need for a warning and enforcement of contentious topic restrictions. There’s no need to give a preemptive warning on every thread if no actual disruption is occurring. Also; ITN mightn’t be “all too well known for” disruptive FORUM comments if the appropriate policies were enforced, and a warning banner that most people will skip over does not constitute enforcement. Duly signed, WaltClipper (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d say a good compromise might be to put banners on those topics with an ECP restriction, as that’s where a non-negligible amount of editors might unknowingly break the restrictions. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should at least be present for ARBPIA topics considering that its construed so broadly that the EC restriction covers ITN nomination discussions; the amount of random non-ECs who comment on every single I-P-related nomination might seem to further justify such a notice. That’s obviously the big one, especially right now in the current context. JM (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I’m fine with it if commonsense says the topic is so hot that there is a real possibility that the discussion can get derailed. The ICJ nomination is a solid example of when to use it. But I think some discretion needs to be exercised. I personally might not have put it on the Red Sea nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seconding this. The Kip 23:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense for things that will be blatantly controversial, such as the Indian temple. Marking every instance of AP2 is likely not needed. Curbon7 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might only add them if there is clearly statements bordering on violating the terms that those CTOP banners cover. I think implicit in working at ITN is that editors should be aware of the general types of restrictions that Arbcom and the community has placed on certain topics. Masem (t) 01:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The G20 is a notable event where the top 18 powerful nations gather (and various heads of organisations like the UN, EU, and AU) to discuss various issues. G7 is already there in ITN/R under Economic and political summits , so why not G20? Harvici (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Disasters Expo USA, is proud to be supported by Inergency for their next upcoming edition on March 6th & 7th 2024!

The leading event mitigating the world’s most costly disasters is returning to the Miami Beach

Convention Center and we want you to join us at the industry’s central platform for emergency management professionals.
Disasters Expo USA is proud to provide a central platform for the industry to connect and
engage with the industry’s leading professionals to better prepare, protect, prevent, respond
and recover from the disasters of today.
Hosting a dedicated platform for the convergence of disaster risk reduction, the keynote line up for Disasters Expo USA 2024 will provide an insight into successful case studies and
programs to accurately prepare for disasters. Featuring sessions from the likes of The Federal Emergency Management Agency,
NASA, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NOAA, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, TSA and several more this event is certainly providing you with the knowledge
required to prepare, respond and recover to disasters.
With over 50 hours worth of unmissable content, exciting new features such as their Disaster
Resilience Roundtable, Emergency Response Live, an Immersive Hurricane Simulation and
much more over just two days, you are guaranteed to gain an all-encompassing insight into
the industry to tackle the challenges of disasters.
By uniting global disaster risk management experts, well experienced emergency
responders and the leading innovators from the world, the event is the hub of the solutions
that provide attendees with tools that they can use to protect the communities and mitigate
the damage from disasters.
Tickets for the event are $119, but we have been given the promo code: HUGI100 that will
enable you to attend the event for FREE!

So don’t miss out and register today: https://shorturl.at/aikrW

And in case you missed it, here is our ultimate road trip playlist is the perfect mix of podcasts, and hidden gems that will keep you energized for the entire journey

-

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More