Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 7 January 2022

Please note:Please do not post error reports for Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you. Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Please do not write disagreements about article content here. Instead, post them to WP:CEN. Thank you.

This talk page is for general discussions on In the news. Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion. Found an error in a current item? Report it on Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors (WP:ERRORS) Nominating a new item to be posted? Go to Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C). Nominating a current item for removal? Go to Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C). Updating the template yourself? Only administrators can do this. For instructions on updating the template, see Misplaced Pages:In the news/Admin instructions (WP:ITN/A) Recurring items? For items which occur more than once, such as awards or sporting competitions, see Misplaced Pages:In the news/Recurring items (WP:ITNR)

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Stephen Harrison (August 16, 2018). "Who Updates Celebrity Deaths on Misplaced Pages?". Slate. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Omer Benjakob (8 April 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Is Immune to Coronavirus". Haaretz. Retrieved 10 April 2020. Indeed, while other websites refer readers to the WHO website on coronavirus, Misplaced Pages refers readers to, well, Misplaced Pages. The overall Misplaced Pages homepage now has a section dedicated solely to the COVID articles whose veracity they are confident about.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

ITNR archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Year in review (almost)

I had some time earlier this afternoon and pulled this table together. It was a 'quick-and-dirty' analysis, so might have some numbers off, but, hopefully not terribly off.

Summary: I think this project should really feel proud of the work that each one of the members have done. Together, the group has worked on ~1,300 articles (or ~110 articles per month) and brought them up to homepage levels of hygiene. That is a win no matter how you see it.

Level 2 Analysis:

1. Abandon rate (i.e nominated but not posted) is ~25% for RDs and ~60% for news articles.
2. Fatigue is showing up in the second half of the year. Can be seen in the declining number of articles being posted. Could be attributed to multiple reasons including perhaps the world opening up (which is undoubtedly a good thing).

* December numbers thru December 18, 2022.

If someone wants any other slicing and dicing of the numbers, let me know and I will try getting to it. Alternately, will give you all the raw data to run your own analysis. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• In my experience the end of the year is typically a slow period; somewhere between November- to roughly the Super Bowl, which is roughly when awards shows and other sporting events happen. Incidentally the Super Bowl is now scheduled a week later than previously so that might bump out the slow period another week. There's no major US election to post until next November. We can now only wait for stuff to happen. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• This is useful analysis and thanks to Ktin for putting it together. My take-away is that ITN consistently posts less than 1 blurb per day (less than 30/month). I believe ITN would be better if it cycled through more often; we could be posting more. We shouldn't compromise on quality, but we can lower our standards for "significance", and thereby approve more noms, and have an ITN that cycles with at least a new story once a day on average (there is not a day that goes by on Earth when something significant doesn't happen somewhere in the world). (Another way to do it is to be more willing to post RD blurbs.) Levivich 17:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Significance is relative, which is why it is discussed and a consensus reached as with most if not all things on Misplaced Pages. We don't get 1) a blurb nomination every day and 2) the nominated articles are not always improved. I await your more frequent nominations to consider, as nothing is stopping you from doing so. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  The whole point of RD was to reduce death blurbs. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder to what extent the RD decline over the year is due to WikiCup. Relatively easy way to get points, and there are always plenty of RD noms on the table with okay-ish prose but need some cleanup and referencing work. Spencer 03:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Where are the women?

After donating money to support Misplaced Pages again this morning (21 December 2021), I noticed once again that the list of recent deaths on the home page only lists men. Do women not die? Or are their deaths not important enough to be noted? Or is it that their achievements in life were not recognised as being notable, and therefore their deaths are not considered as notable either? Who judges these things please? Who decides that the number of Misplaced Pages pages about men should so grossly outweigh the number of pages about women? 2A00:23C8:960E:5800:F4EB:C27D:EC85:F64A (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Another implication of Misplaced Pages being written by volunteers: they will write about what interests them. If you wish to source and write about notable women who have died go ahead. Britmax (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominations are made at WP:ITN/C. Anyone can nominate anybody who meets the criteria. Yes, there is a gender bias on Misplaced Pages. Volunteers are needed to help counter it. I have nominated Myrna Manzanares for the recent death section. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As noted above there is a gender bias, part that we do trying to fight against by making sure we do not have any bias in selection. But there is also external biases in reporting that still favor men, which is slowly dwindling but still significant. We cannot fix that. --Masem (t) 23:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I invite you to participate here at ITN. We can only consider what is nominated and improved sufficiently. Any article about a recently deceased person can be posted to RD if nominated and improved. The best way for you to see more women posted is for you to help us do so, and we could use the help. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Can someone review Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates#RD: Madhur Kapila, please? This RD is female. I can post this on RD, but I believe noms should be reviewed by more than one pair of eyes (besides mine) before they get promoted to MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  She's now listed, as are Sarah Weddington and Janice Long, beside three men. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The large majority of WP editors are male, which causes a bias. However, a bigger issue is that notable men greatly outnumber notable women. Many occupations in which people achieve notability - including politicians, scientists, inventors, sportspeople & filmmakers - have far more men in them than women. Jim Michael (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Add to that that men in all fields are more likely to have coverage in reliable sources than women (this is a problem, but it's not Misplaced Pages's problem). For recent deaths the majority of people being considered are old and so the majority of them gained their notability decades ago when the world was even more biased against women than it is today, which only further increases the disparity. Finally, recent deaths can only consider people whose death was announced within the last 7 days, and there is limit to how many people can be listed, together this means that even if all other things were equal then just by random chance of who dies when there would be periods when the listing was dominated by one or other gender. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Keeping the homepage fresh (Rotating the image within the ITN box)

Happy holidays folks.

I have been giving this some thought and I think there is merit to keeping the homepage fresh and preventing appearance of staleness. For example the current image of Gabriel Boric has been there for 50+ hours. My recommendation is twofold:

1. Give the Admins the leeway / explicit charter to rotate the images (even if it means picturing the third or fourth news stories or selecting a different picture from the same article) to ensure that an image rotates from the main page in 12 hours / 24 hours. The time is not set in stone, but, rotate to keep the homepage fresh. I think some Admins already do this, but, ensuring that we give the explicit charter will keep the homepage fresh.
2. Be bold and expand the opportunities to select a picture to one of the RD articles as well. E.g. from the current stretch of articles, Robert H. Grubbs has a high quality image that has a solid sourcing. We should give the Admins the charter to dip into the RDs as well to rotate the pictures.

Please note that #2 above should not be construed as a backdoor attempt to create a new tier of RDs. Everything remains the same and the only thing that would be happening is that an Admin rotates the images periodically and dips into the RD carousel to post an image or two if the licensing is solid and there is some amount of staleness on the main page.

If this proposal passes, nothing should change other than a guideline to the posting Admins. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure this has been proposed and rejected in the past, but my search fu is very weak at the moment so I'm failing to find the discussions. IIRC the most recent one (I was involved with) was when someone did it boldly, got reverted and found consensus was against doing it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  I missed the Obligatory FL reference. Does he hold the record for maximum time on the top blurb + pic? Ktin (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  This photograph of him illustrated ITN for 12 days apparently, it was before my time here but from memories of previous discussions I think it was something like his blurb was the only one with a suitable picture until it got knocked off by another blurb for which he was the appropriate image. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• The best way to rotate the image is to nominate a new posting. Unless a bot could do it it would be done very irregularly. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  I was thinking we should keep it real simple. Another nomination makes it a tad complex. {{u|Stephen}} just rotated out the Boric picture (~54 hours). So, in the future, say after 12 / 24 hours, one of the Admins who hops by should just feel empowered to change the current image and in doing so dip into any image that has not been used on the mainpage and then feel empowered to even dip into one of the RD's pictures. Yes, they would need to be skilled to spot any image licensing issues. But, that should be table stakes for all admins, and I think the ITN regular admins are good with that. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) I've found one discussion, Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 72#Swapping images, but I don't think it's the one I was remembering. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks Thryduulf. This thread is from before my time on this project. I think this is worth scratching the surface and asking if it would be worth it in an attempt to encourage freshness. I am pinging a few regular Admins to see if they might be willing to manually rotate images (in the absence of a bot, unless someone can create a bin of images and a bot to post from there) @Spencer, PFHLai, MSGJ, Stephen, Bagumba, Black Kite, Amakuru, and TJMSmith:. Ktin (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

      Having re-read that old discussion, I remain opposed to rotating images - whether by bot or manually - for the reasons explained there. I don't think anything has changed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

      It's also worth noting that changing the image is not as simple as spotting an image that is appropriately licensed - you have to ensure it is properly protected first. That means either uploading a local copy and protecting that, waiting for the Commons automatic process to work (iirc this is sometimes quick and sometimes not), or (if you are also an admin on Commons) protecting the image there manually. See WP:ITNA#Images. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

      Yup. Aware of this protection action that is required. While I should be careful not speaking on behalf of the admins, this is a process-linked action rather than a technical constraint per se. Acknowledge your other note though. Ktin (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

      I'm not rotating images unless there is a consensus from the community to do so.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

      I feel like beating my own drum, but there are not that many good pics to choose from. We also should take into consideration what other pics are on MainPage. When there are already two photoportraits, do we want a third? Or perhaps we wait a few hours and bring in the photoportrait when the other photoportraits leave MainPage at midnight UTC? When TFA is about a storm, do we want another pic of a flood? I prefer some diversity, if choices are available. --PFHLai (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

      Agree. My thinking is that we should allow Admins the freedom / leeway to rotate images to keep the homepage visually cohesive / fresh, even if it means dipping into images from below the topmost blurb. Ktin (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be honest, I think this is more of a solution in search of a problem. In the past couple years, we haven't had a similar egregious Lugo situation IMO. Strongly opposed to RD images. I think if items are the same date, I'm okay with updating an image and rotating something to the top, but not a big fan of items further down the page. Spencer 22:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hi @Spencer: Happy holidays! Agree, this is a solution in search of a problem to the extent that nothing is broken currently. Nor have I seen something as egregious as this Lugo situation. Having seen an image for ~3 days, I was thinking of ways that we can force freshness on the homepage. That's all. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely no complaint, but, there is an opportunity to rotate Desmond Tutu's picture (even if it is with another picture of his) since this one has been there for close to 3 days as-is now. Ktin (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Blurb copy-editing

The lead burb currently is Desmond Tutu. This was rushed onto the main page in less than one hour and the discussion at ITN/C was then closed in less than seven hours. There's now a discussion at WP:ERRORS about copy-editing the blurb. The trouble is that WP:ERRORS is strictly just for errors and discussions on that page tend to get swept away quickly without any formal continuity or archiving. Wouldn't it be better to keep the discussion at ITN/C open while the blurb is still up so that the presentation, wording and choice of picture can be discussed here, rather than being forced into a forum that's not designed or intended for the purpose? ITN/C seems best for the purpose as its format normally includes the listing of ALT blurbs. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed. Closing discussions should really be an avenue of last resort when things are going off the rails, not a means to avoid reasonable collaborative discussion. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• As the poster I strongly object to the characterization that it was "rushed". It was a GA that was in good shape, it was updated, and there was a consensus for a blurb. We are often critcized for posting too slow, now I've posted too fast. I can't win, I guess. There is no arbitrary minimum discussion time, nor should there be as that would prevent being responsive to current events when we have a good article. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Once a blurb is posted, it is visible to more editors on the MP and ERRORS is a broader forum to discuss immediate desired changes. It's also fundamentally correct as those seeking changes are suggesting that a current blurb is in error without those changes. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• WP:ERRORS is and has always been the place to make suggestions or amendments to blurbs unless we are discussing a significant update to the storyline. In this case, there's no further update that can be made since Desmond Tutu is clearly dead, and not just sleeping. Anyone who tells you WP:ERRORS is not the place is in... well, in error. :P --WaltCip-(talk) 21:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Also -- What a lot of baloney that WP:ERRORS doesn't get enough traffic. Plenty of admins go through it on a daily basis, otherwise it would just be piling up with unaddressed errors. If anything, ITN/C is more at risk of being ignored as we've seen plenty of noms go stale from lack of updates.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Baloney baffles brains

• WP:ERRORS is worse than baloney. Here's a fresh example. Yesterday, there was an error in the FA blurb. I updated the article and started corresponding discussion on its talk page. I also reported the blurb error at WP:ERRORS. Nothing was done that day; nothing. After the FA scrolled off, the error report was then perfunctorily reverted like it had never happened.

Much the same happened to the discussion of the ITN blurb for Tutu – it was reverted from WP:ERRORS without any formal close or record being made.

The consequence of such brush-offs and neglect is that that editors learn not to waste their time there and so the process declines. We see the same happening at ITN/C too where discussions are also closed in a peremptory and high-handed manner. This discourages participation and so ITN is routinely stale, reporting news from over a week ago.

Of course, this is not the fault of any particular person because no-one is directly responsible – there's no roster or rota and so it's a matter of luck whether anyone is paying attention or not. It's good that real sausages are not made in this way as we would soon be poisoned by them. So, responsible sausage makers have quality control. We don't.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The ITN part of ERRORS tends to get more eyes since blurbs likely will stay visible on the main page for more than 24hr, compared with TFA, DYK, and other sections. In addition to the number of people that are watching it. It's probably harder to get that for the more temporary items that also require more expertise to fix. --Masem (t) 13:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Errors has an edit history, just like everything else. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that we build a simple script that transcludes the content from the WP:ERRORS page into WP:ITNC nomination. Will solve everyone's concerns. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

... it was reverted from WP:ERRORS without any formal close or record being made.: It seem the Tutu ERRORS discussion reached no consensus that there was an error. Following standard ERRORS process: "the report will be removed from this page; please check the page's revision history for any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept." I concur that the ITN portion of ERRORS gets more attention than do other parts.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How can we incentivize reviewers?

We have good traction of editors chiming in when it comes to determining blurb eligibility. However, we definitely are running short of reviewers who can evaluate article readiness for homepage / RD. How can we incentivize editors to contribute to the latter objective?

Suggestions

1. (Relatively easy) Modify the credit script to give credit to reviewers as well?
2. (Relatively moderate) Institute a QPQ system like WP:DYK
3. (Relatively difficult) Institute a points system and post an end of month leader board / give out badge of honors (is that even a thing?) for reviewers?
4. (Outside our control) Pass along this information to other projects e.g. WP:WIKICUP and request them to give out points for article reviews similar to WP:FAR or WP:GAN, though the points will have to be much lesser I would think.
5. Other thoughts? Ktin (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• My thought is that readiness is more objective than blurbs, so we don't actually need anywhere as many people to !vote on it. One person can say "article has an orange tag" and that's all it needs until they hopefully check 8 or so hours later, while a discussion is encouraged on whether a blurb is suitable. I'm not sure there is really an issue? Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Kingsif; don't think there's lack of reviewers. For example, if the one comment on an RD says that it needs a lot of work and references, I check to see if that's still the case, and if so, I move on. No need for me to chime in about the same thing. Spencer 03:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• While more reviewers would be a good thing, it's not clear that we are necessarily "short of reviewers".—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Preparations for Queen's death?

Not to be morbid, but I was just thinking, does ITN have a plan for blurb posting upon event of the death of Elizabeth II? Can I propose one? This plan assumes that 1. the Queen will get a blurb, and 2. the Queen's article will be suitable for MP at the time of her death. Taking those as red, here are questions for the community to gauge if we want a plan or not:

1. Should the Queen's death blurb get any special treatment, like the COVID box, and what would it be? (e.g. keep it at the top of the box for duration of official mourning or something)
2. Should we prepare a blurb now that can be posted, to prevent lengthy discussion on what to mention, and what should it be?
3. and, if so, should the first admin to see the news IAR and just post the blurb without opening discussion?

That last question is coming from the understanding that if only one person were to have their death blurbed, it would be the Queen, and the knowledge that millions of readers will immediately come to Misplaced Pages at the news. I remember there being public scrutiny of how long it has taken to post highly notable deaths before, and think this would only be exacerbated with possibly the most prominent person in the world. Whatever you think of the Queen, she has been iconic in public life (and technically head of state of multiple countries) longer than most people have been alive, she qualifies for the special treatment.

To get discussion going, my personal suggestion for a blurb would be "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms, longest-serving head of state in history, dies in at the age of . She is succeeded as British monarch by her , who becomes , the first King of the United Kingdom in seven decades." – the bracketed parts are the factors that can change but will be known in a death announcement. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is a plan. Overzealous admins will post it into the box probably before a formal nomination is even made. There will next be an acromonious tit-for-tat discussion over timing, "X-centrism", the blurb wording at WP:ITNC, where the nom will be closed and the bickering will boil over to WP:ERRORS and eventually to WT:ITN where one or more RFCs will be proposed, walls of text erected, but no action actually taken. Honestly the most helpful thing anyone could do is to keep Elizabeth II at it's already excellent level of quality so that when the above happens, at least we won't be expressing a poor quality article to the main page. Happy new year! --LaserLegs (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

As long as we know ;) Kingsif (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The Queen will probably outlive this entire site, so I can't say I've ever thought about it. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Presuming things go according to the existing plan, it is going to dominate headlines for weeks at least, so I'd probably be inclined to support an ongoing. Keeping it at the top of ITN seems unnecessary to me, the reaction and reflection to the death itself is what will dominate headlines after the initial day or so of announcing - an ongoing tag would be more acceptable for me, instead of losing an ITN slot for an indefinite amount of time. Canadianerk (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would hope that the plan is to treat her death like we would treat any other clearly blurb-worthy death: Post a blurb when the article is in good enough shape. Leave it in the ITN box until it naturally rolls off, at which point it can be moved to ongoing if it is still ongoing. Why would any special treatment be needed or justified? Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: I would feel safe in saying that when she dies, ITN/C will get thousands of extra opinions very quickly. Few will be useful. Rather than sifting through endless "duh it's the Queen" and "she was just a figurehead" comments to see if there is a blurb with consensus, we can streamline the inevitable. If you think that's unnecessary, that's fine. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

As an immortal lizard person, the question is moot. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• I realize she is 95, but is her death known to be imminent? Her mother was 100. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  Her death is not (publicly) known to be imminent. There are plans for what will happen when she dies, but these have existed and been continually revised for literally decades, so that's no indication. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  ^^^ what he said. However you do get a lot of chatter this time of year about her health due to the Queen's Speech putting her in front of the entire world, and she has been quite ill recently. That and the stress of the past two years... So no, not imminent, but also if it happened, it wouldn't be surprising at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  @331dot: Hopefully this entertains you: I had a dream that the Queen died and we couldn't agree on what image to use so it didn't make it to the box until the next day and then all the tabloids starting accusing Misplaced Pages of being anti-monarchy and then Catherine Maher or whoever is in charge now had to make some official statement on TV about the ITN process and then ITN got shut down. While I know it is unlikely anything like that will happen, I thought why not come up with preparations anyway, you know every other website has their plans. Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea of having an IAR posting, so long as it's clear that the death is from a verified reliable source and not from someplace like TMZ or Gawker. I'm also not immediately opposed to having a COVID-style box to cover the death, since it's obvious that there will be numerous plaudits and state funerals in response to such an occurrence, regardless of how it may come about. This thing will get coverage for weeks and weeks. Certainly I believe it's probable that when it does occur, ITN/C will receive a surge of attention from editors and readers who do not normally frequent that particular section of Misplaced Pages, and there's going to be a barrage of "Strong support, post ASAP - She's the Queen"-type !votes, which won't bring much benefit to our process.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Covid box was becuase we felt that was critical news that readers should know about and wanted to highlight, at least at the start of the pandemic; now its just ongoing as the criticalness is no longer as severe. The Queen's death is nowhere near that level of "critical, need to know" to highlight it specifically. But an ongoing item during the funeral and transition of power would be reasonable. --Masem (t) 16:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, on a serious note, Covid box was an example of the kind of idea someone might suggest; if ongoing is suitable, I don't think it's wrong to have a plan rather than let it be nominated at the time, because of the mess any discussion would likely turn into. Kingsif (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• I assumed that Jimbo Wales and Charles Wales agreed on an entirely new main page to use in the event of that tragic event ever occurring. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  How will they get Charles' ears to fit on the stamps?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  Don't, I'm having flashbacks to the outrage at Jimmy moving Meghan's article from "Markle" to "Duchess" while discussion was ongoing. Kingsif (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• If you want to save your best royal jokes for my talkpage, I'm taking stand-up suggestions for when the day comes. Kingsif (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Death and state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II already redirects to Operation London Bridge, which is the contingency plan already in place for this death. BD2412 T 01:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: Relevance? Are you suggesting we mention it in a blurb or? Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

My point is that we, as a project, are already preparing for this eventuality, as we should be. News organizations routinely have headlines and coverage teed up for deaths at this level. BD2412 T 01:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

And for us, at least those that want to see us react ASAP when it happens, they should make sure the article(s) are as up to quality at this point, knowing that the events of her death will then need to be added and sourced. But that's the same with other recurring events that we usually have editors have the page ready to go and just waiting for the event to conclude to finish it up for ITN posting. --Masem (t) 01:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Blurb RDs, requiring article to specifically discuss the greatness of "major figures"

As we have had a string of cases of people nominating for blurbs that really don't meet the criteria that we have (which is established as "Major figures" presently), I think we need to be clear that if we are going to have a blurb on somebody, that person's impact or legacy or similar concept absolutely needs to be well documented in the person's article (pulling from secondary sources), and should not simply be based on factual superlatives, a person's popularity or being a household name, or the like. Readers should have something in the target article to read about why we posted something as a blurb for a death that's more than typical of a standard biographical article to understand why we've made the exception of just listing the death in the RD line. Otherwise, we're going to continue to have blurbs pushed for deaths because the person was popular.

Mind you, this means that such a section can be added while the article is up for ITNC consideration, this doesn't have to be a previous section. But nearly all the cases we have had blurbs of late can be shown where those blurbs posted have a clear section related to legacy or impact already in the article, while those not posted as blurbs (but otherwise posted as RD) have failed to have anything of that sort. --Masem (t) 13:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, delete that whole idea, just blurb deaths that have a blurb's worth of story to them. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Without anything in the article, making a claim that a person is a "major figure" would be original research, that's the problem. It provides a better bar for blurbs to be used, given that the RD bar is very low (article just has to be in shape). --Masem (t) 14:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You think your bar's better, I think mine is. We're stuck on that. Raising the RD bar back might help give actual celebrities their time up front, stop the flood of dead riffraff without photos. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

That you call other non-celebrities as "dead riffraff" is probably not a good way to be speaking about the situation if you want to continue to participate at ITN. RD is there for any notable individual (once article is up to snuff) which is about as low a bar as you can have. Elevations beyond that should be exceptional and the article should show why that's the case, not editors arguing their only logic for why. --Masem (t) 14:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for that characterization. But they do seem like relatively minor figures, chosen largely arbitrarily, and we've usually never seen them. There's a whole daily list for that level of notability. I was here when we had higher standards for RD, and when we lowered them. It wasn't a terrible system, could be reworked, somehow. But this current three-tiered greatness scheme has had a ton of problems, too. Good luck ironing them out! I mean that in a good way. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Having a sourced section about legacy of a person in an article is somewhat objective measure of why a blurb is reasonable, as that gives us secondary sourced-basis to make that call, rather than relying on opinions of editors, which tends to favor outright popularity over actual importance. --Masem (t) 14:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I made one of those today, for Ruth Warrick. Is she anything like Bowie or Ali for it? I doubt that. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I said this idea was a requirement for a blurb, but not that it was an assurance a blurb should be posted. And to be honest, what you have for Warrick may be some type of legacy but I can reasonably expect that most ITN commentors would not consider that a significant one to show us why the person was a "great figure". --Masem (t) 14:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree hers is poorly sourced, I just changed the header to something standard for dead people. Hard to know what someone will leave behind when they're only gone a day. Do many great and major BLPs even have those sections yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Most people that really should be blurbed will already have these sections, their accomplished already laid out and documented (as was the case with Desmond Tutu). Some may only come together with long-form obits, but that's why I've said that these sections can be added during the ITNC process. But in general, the problem is the same problem why many RDs nominated don't get posted - editors are doing crap jobs of making sure BLP articles are up to sourcing standards while the person is alive, requiring a rush to fix that at the point of death to get the ITNC RD or blurb. --Masem (t) 15:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of us also do a crap job of separating today's news (plain simple death) from stuff that already made the dead newsworthy many years earlier. We might remember that stuff. But that's never what we publish, just their age. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I see Kevin Nash does and Scott Hall doesn't, that's messed up. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. We also, I think, should be explicit somewhere (maybe add to the line about article quality in the RD template?) that popularity and how well known someone is or isn't are completely irrelevant for determining whether someone gets a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to mention about adding something like this, but given that the blurb RD criteria had removed language, I don't think adding it back in this way is really correct. But I do not see a problem with the minimum requirement that the article clearly demonstrate the legacy of a person as a first step towards a blurb. Most "popular" people that aren't great figures don't have such sections. --Masem (t) 14:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the specific instruction creep here that a target needs a legacy section. But speaking more broadly, this effort to fix blurbs is a quixotic endeavor. We've made many adjustments to the qualifications, but the standard continues to be personal opinion. Blurb discussions frequently cause discord, then someone runs over here to "fix" the standards if the result didn't go the way they like. I see three options for fixing blurbs (none of which will gain sufficient support, but anyway): 1. Codify the existing standard of "I know it when I see it" and stop pretending we're applying anything more formal. 2. Allow blurbs based on a high quality standard (such as GA). OR 3. Get rid of blurbs altogether. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Not altogether, just when the subject is old enough that there's no apparent cause of death, and nobody wonders. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

While that is an objective standard, it is one that the consensus has consciously rejected. IMO, Betty White is more deserving of a blurb then if a younger, less notable person dies unexpectedly. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The point is to add something more objective, similar to article quality, to give reason to have a blurb, and the one common factor I see for most cases of when we use a blurb is when the article has a clear section related to impact or legacy of a person. How well that lends to a blurb is still subjective, but its a starting point to avoid cases where the ITNC becomes a popularity contest (which ITN is not meant to be). --Masem (t) 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You could add or omit a legacy section for pretty much anyone that would get a nom. That does not address the underlying issue: RD blurbs are a popularity contest. We AGF in that editors are reading and abiding by the guidelines, even though we know they often are not. People should consider the facts and the guidelines, then decide, but instead they decide and cherry-pick whatever supports their argument (see your own vote on John Madden, which diminished his coaching career by comparing him to someone with a lesser record who died 50 years ago, while completely ignoring his broadcasting career). If the consensus is !voting to post, one of the admins will post. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

But it is far too trending towards making the posting of blurbs a popularity contest, which is not what we want. Fighting off !votes based on popularity helps to expand what gets covered in RD blurbs away from US and UK topics, for one thing. RD blurbs are meant to be exceptional, and what we have going on right now is not that. And what I mean is that its not necessary to have an explicit legacy section, it should be very clear from a read that the article demonstrates why other secondary sources stress the person is a great figure. If the bio is just a career and filmography with nothing about their impact or legacy, its very hard to take claims of being a great figure seriously. Same would be true for an athlete, a politician/world leader, or a scientist. Blurbed articles should show how WP is properly summarizing their importance, and not just because its in the news. --Masem (t) 17:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course the RD blurb process at ITN/C is a sham. It comes down to how many people say "notable enough for a blurb" vs "not notable enough for a blurb" and that's it. I like the idea of coming up with an objective standard, but ultimately that objective standard is still subject to subjectivity because humans are still giving their opinion and assessment as to the degree of accomplishments someone has. Also, obituaries for someone recently passed will inevitably puff up their influence within their field.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hey look, someone disagrees a blurb got posted rather than a simple mention at recent deaths, so let's have another conversation that goes nowhere. (Just to be clear, I oppose any proposed changes at this time.) Calidum 16:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Calidum 16:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Like it or not, people are likely going to compare the Betty White blurb posting to that of Carrie Fisher, mostly because of White's fame in show business and not for being a Thatcher/Mandela in her field. WaltCip-(talk) 16:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I hate that every celebrity death somehow gets compared to those two. It would be preferable if we compare actors to other actors, singers to other singers, etc., rather than two elected officials who just happened to die the soon after the RD section was created. Calidum 01:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  It was the same problem, too many supports were "she's popular/well-known" which is not what makes someone a great figure. Consider several suggested RD blurbs as recent too like John Madden. We have too many editors that use this metric when "great figure" is not based on popularity. Something is very wrong and needs to be remedied here. --Masem (t) 17:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I could at least understand the Fisher one, purely because of the global popularity of Star Wars. The Betty White one is a joke, most people outside the USA would have absolutely no idea who she was, and she was not transformative in her field in any way. Voted on by (mostly) Americans while the rest of the world was asleep or celebrating new year. A new low point for ITN. Still, we now know that the only metric for posting a blurb is "beloved". Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    • No, there's "old" as well. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    • "Voted on by (mostly) Americans while the rest of the world was asleep or celebrating new year." Bullshit. The thread was open for 13 hours before White got posted. Meanwhile Sean Connery's blurb was posted within five hours, but no one ran here to whinge about it after the fact. (And, by the way, nothing in Misplaced Pages:In the news/Recent deaths says someone must be "transformative" to be posted.) Calidum 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
      • That was removed relatively recently, but it still requires "major figures" with an emphasis on being exceptional. Betty White was not that. This was posted by a push based on "popularity", the same problem that Fisher's blurb caused, and which we have been careful to avoid (eg just this week with Madden). Posting blurbs based on popularity creates a Western-news bias (US or UK) which we need to avoid. I am absolutely sure that there are similar actors like White that have a prolonged career within their country's media, but whose name is relatively unknown to the rest of the world, and this blurb posting creates an example for those to be argued. It is far better if we have actual demonstration by sources of why a person is a great actor to base blurb posting on rather than outright "she's popular!" --Masem (t) 01:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Bert Newton died back in October, at the age of 83, here in Australia. I nominated him here for RD. It finally made it. Bert was immensely well known and popular in Australia, after an obviously very long career. I never even dreamt of nominating him for a blurb. He would not have stood a chance. Why Betty and not Bert? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Exactly my point. And dare we have an actor in a non-English actor in a similar position (Yes we posted Dilip Kumar as a blurb but it wasn't because he was just popular, but he was shown as a key figure in the Bollywood industry as demonstrated by sources, see Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/July 2021) A person is not a major figure simply due to being popular or a household name. --Masem (t) 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
          • If you felt Newton was blurb-worthy, you should have nominated him and made a case for it. It's unfair to now say that's an example of bias. Calidum 02:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
            • I repeat - I never even dreamt of nominating him for a blurb. He would not have stood a chance. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Bullshit? Really? OK, let's take Europe. It was posted around the time that many people would be starting preparations for NYE celebrations, and it was closed early in their morning. That's certainly why I didn't see it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Are you equating White with Connery, by the way? Someone compared her to Tutu earlier. Still, if we're dropping the bar this low at least there'll be no complaints about ITN stories going stale, as we'll be posting elderly actors who have shuffled off this mortal coil on a regular basis. Black Kite (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Connery was the most recent actor that was posted that came to mind as somewhat equivalent to White (I'd put Kumar, mentioned above, at a higher level). Was Connery well-known? Yes. A major figure? Probably. Transformative? No. But he was a male and non-American, so he had those going for him. Calidum 02:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
        • OK, let's take Europe.: Here's the actual White timeline: Nominated at 19:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC). Posted 13 hours later at 08:25, 1 January. Closed 7 hours later with two new formal opposes by 15:46. That's a lot of waking hours in Europe there, both before the actual post and after.—Bagumba (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
          • It was New Year's Eve! Absolutely no reason why it couldn't have waited. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
            • Sure, but in hindsight, there was negligible backlash after the post. Minimum discussion time proposals were rejected before, and I doubt a New Year rule would pass either.—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Similar reasoning to GCG above I think, a more technical approach. ITN should not be in the business of dictating articles tailor extra content: what if one day the biography project decides to ban legacy sections? And I think it would be especially problematic with RDs, when there's already hyperactivity: if no legacy section existed, how easy would it be to add one with the edit conflicts, and how many edit wars on what it should contain would happen amidst the mess already, when inexperienced fans and efficient current events editors clash?
  I am each month becoming more opposed to more guidelines on death blurbs in general, after having tried to make a stricter set myself, not because of disillusionment but because it is truly hard to checklist or quantify what makes a death that isn't itself exceptional a news item. And that's really what ITN should be looking at: is the death itself a notable news story (here, one could argue with White's upcoming ironic 100th birthday film, it is, but I won't) or is it major news anyway (here, the BBC interrupted their evening news broadcast to go back to studio and announce White's death, breaking-style and with a full-screen photo, but let's not focus on White).
  Actually, yeah, that's a decent counter-suggestion. That we shouldn't be debating the person themselves as we long have; if their death is treated like major news (something we can empirically prove, if we set a high bar), then it is assumed that, in the zeitgeist, they are important enough. That their death is news, and, relevant. That if we were writing Misplaced Pages in 100 or 1000 years we would see the way the death was reported and think "so they were important". Kingsif (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That is treating ITN as a news ticker, which we absolutely are not. We are aiming to point readers to articles that represent the best WP work, and which topics happen to be in the news, not because that they are in the news. --Masem (t) 03:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I think that's a misrepresentation of my suggestion. I suggested we use how the news treats a famous death as a determiner of their significance, if there is no other objective way to do so. Your suggestion actually, functionally, relies on the same premise; the sources for the legacy section would be written by the same media as the RS news handling the death, often at the same time as legacy is rarely discussed when people are alive. I basically said "yes but don't make people put it in the article". If we were a news ticker, every death with a source would be a blurb instead of RD and you know that isn't what I was suggesting. Kingsif (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
      • That's the bias I've talked about already. The news will undoubtably be English-based sources, and primarily US and UK. We already have too many editors on any ITNC (not just death blurbs) going "its in the headlines all over so we should post". And moreso when we talk entertainment or celebrity news. It completely biases that against important non-English people who's death may not get that much coverage in English sources but are major figures. We avoid looking at how much a topic is covered by the news (as long as it is covered to a minimum degree) nor do we look at how the topic is covered by the news, because newspapers and media are in a completely different motivation than our goals for ITNC. --Masem (t) 04:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this Betty White rule (Disclosure: I did not !vote at the ITNC nom). WP:ITNRD refers to "major figures" decided on a "sui generis basis". The few opposers at the White nom argued that she was not "transformative" nor "top of the field", but the supporters generally did not use that as their basis. Adding a "legacy" section which wouldn't anyways describe her as transformative or top of her field would not have convinced the opposers there.—Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The problem for White is that the supporters were argument that longevity or popularity of White equated to "great figure" , which is absolutely a terrible means to judge that and would open the door to far too much bias. "Great figure" is related to someone's merit, legacy, and impact, and this wasn't demonstrated for White beyond "she had lots of roles". ITN cannot be popularity contests, is why is we need this to be fixed. --Masem (t) 17:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think that there is a problem here that needs fixing. We determined through discussion and consensus that White merited posting; we determined through the same that John Madden did not(I disagree, but that's what happened). I agree with Bagumba's comments above. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per GCG, and ultimately as a solution looking for a problem. Candidates should be discussed on a needs-of-business basis; further codification is unnecessary. SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The people suggesting that Betty White was not a great figure don't seem to have read her article. Its lead is full of stuff like her being one of the "the first women to exert control" and the "First Lady of Television". She was clearly a great in her field, up there with Lucille Ball, say. The trouble seems to be that her field was middle-of-the-road light entertainment and this doesn't get respect here. But the readership figures provide objective evidence that posting was the correct call. Betty White's death spike is over 7M and counting. Hardly anyone gets those kind of numbers. Desmond Tutu, for example, has yet to reach 1M while Sally Ann Howes only got 220K. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also, the majority of editors just declared their desire to have Betty White posted. It's seems highly cynical to think you could garner majority support here to create a new rule for that stated intent of excluding her. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  How many of those editors supporting the blurb were ITN regulars? The situation created now makes blurb posting a popularity contest, which is the opposite of what ITN RD blurbs are for as well as consensus.--Masem (t) 15:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  The opinions of ITN regulars carry no further weight than any other user. And let's be honest, all blurbs, with the exception of ITNR items, are popularity contests. Calidum 15:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  If we start dividing participants in ITN/C between "regulars" and "non-regulars", we start admitting to ourselves that we essentially have an unwritten bureaucracy in place. The thing to do in that instance isn't to deepen the divide by adding more policy restrictions in place, but rather to encourage more participation. WaltCip-(talk) 16:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, that was precisely what I meant by cynical; didn't really expect you to say the quiet part out loud. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  My point is not so much trying to divide regulars versus newcomers, but that the newcomers generally enter with !votes of "this person was popular/famous/a household name" and not with statements that justify the "major figures" approach we have been used historically, nor consistent with why we created the RD line with almost zero barrier to entry (as to keep death blurbs to the most exceptional cases) The net effect is that when it comes to blurbs for major figures but who aren't as famous as celebrities, we get mostly regulars fairly debating on whether the "major figure" aspect is met (for example, looking at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2021 at E.O. Wilson, Karolos Papoulias, and even Bipin Rawat shows a small number of !votes, but you get to White or Madden, and there's tons more). While one can argue every ITNC is a popularity contest, it is the blurbs for these Western celebrities that are drastically influenced by the weight of them being popular. It's why having some type of pseudo-objective standard - in this case some clear indication in the article of a person's impact or legacy - to move beyond just being famous or a household name, feels necessary to have editors that participate focus more on stronger reasoning to include a death blurb. Otherwise we're going to just get more of these which as I've explained creates a huge bias in favor of English/Western/US and UK celebrities over any other type of person. --Masem (t) 01:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I recognize a large-scale change to the ITN and ITN/RD rules is likely going to garner pushback. So here's a suggestion that is less invasive, and at worst means we don't throw a blurb up on the main page as soon as it's ready -- which frankly shouldn't really be an issue, since ITN is not a news ticker.

• All recent deaths nominated to be posted as a blurb will be subject to a 25-hour waiting period from the nomination time prior to posting, in order to:
  • ... ensure there is sufficient participation,
  • ... ensure that all reliable source coverage regarding the death is valid, accurate, and up-to-date, and...
  • ... ensure that the article being posted is in a stable state in light of WP:BLP and the death being a current event.

I see this being more-or-less a win-win situation, and shouldn't be an issue of WP:CREEP since most discussions tend to run long anyway. Yes, this also means we would need to wait 25 hours for even WP:SNOW situations. I think we can stand it.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose arbitrary minimum discussion times as I have consistently. Doing it here opens the door to do it more generally. We should have flexibility to be responsive to current events. Are we really going to wait 25 hours to post Queen Elizabeth's death as a blurb? And if we aren't, then any minimum time will be so full of holes as to be useless. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, we would wait 25 hours. Why wouldn't we? What if the news regarding Queen Elizabeth's death in the first two hours turns out to be false? We have been fooled before. WaltCip-(talk) 16:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Please link to the last time we posted a death blurb that turned out to be in error. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not going to do that, partly because I don't catalog recent deaths on Misplaced Pages, but mostly because I know even if I put forth the effort to locate and post an example, it won't change your mind since - by your own admission - you have consistently opposed minimum discussion times over the years. WaltCip-(talk) 16:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I cannot compel you to do so, but I was genuinely curious because I can't recall when that happened. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  And while 2 hours might be too short, it would look foolish for us to be artificially waiting 25 hours. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Instead of a specific hard or soft minimum time I would have much less of a problem with adding a suggestion to Misplaced Pages:In the news/Administrator instructions#ITNC. It already states "If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old." Perhaps we could add something to that to encourage allowing additional input from other time zones but not be a hard or soft specific time. We need flexibility to respond to current events. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose If there is clear SNOW, and the admin can make a sound judgement that that SNOW is not likely to change due to different regions waking up to respond, then the period is silly to wait - eg I know I posted Stephen Hawking's death in 4 hrs due to the SNOW, and the above example of the Queen will be similar. But if it is not snowing, or there is clearly going to be a national focus involved, then admins should wait that 24hr cycle to make sure there's reasonable agreement from editors across the globe. (This was the case with White's nomination). --Masem (t) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that admins should wait the 24 hours for anything contentious, and I have no problem updating the administrator instructions to state this. But even if we do so, I would fathom that our current spate of ITN posting admins, based on experience, are likely to value their own personal judgment over whatever the administrator instructions say. WaltCip-(talk) 17:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  If we set this by consensus, and we have an admin repeating ignoring that, that becomes a problem to bring to AN/ANI. --Masem (t) 17:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  To add, RDs are clearly not subject to this, we only need article quality to have been reviewed to make sure its ready to go. --Masem (t) 17:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose. There are people who we can all agree should get a blurb (if their article is in good shape), Desmond Tutu being the most recent example, so any proposal needs to account for those people as well as those for whom it is not clear. This proposal does not do that. We could try and list those people who we think should be exempt from a rule, but everything I can think of would have exceptions both ways. For example, if the incumbent head of state or government of the US, UK, Canada, Australia or Russia were to die they would be blurbed (subject to article quality). A few other countries would likely be on at least most people's lists too (e.g. New Zealand, South Africa, China) but not every country would be on the list (Tuvalu? Liechtenstein?) so a line would need to be drawn somewhere and that's only going to lead to arguments. Similarly, I don't think Archbishops emeritus would be on anyone's list. The only thing that makes objective sense to me is to require the article to make it clear to someone not familiar with the subject why they are more deserving of a blurb than others in their field (considering "field" broadly and internationally). Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  That has nothing to do with my alternate proposal. WaltCip-(talk) 18:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  There are two parts to my comment. The first is a full explanation of why I oppose your proposal. The second is why I would also oppose a related proposal. Both parts are relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  And I opposed Tutu's blurb, just didn't say so in time. The Queen is the only example I don't mind blurbing on natural causes alone. Nobody else, not even Hogan. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think even the queen would be unopposed if she dropped dead tomorrow and her article was an FA. We have to go with consensus and there is no doubt that consensus is to blurb some people (with that some being a larger set than just one monarch). Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I know, just speaking for myself, exclusively in response to your first point. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  As a bystander in most of these discussions, I feel consensus is one of those words that is just thrown in without folks knowing what it truly means (along with other words like transformative). E.g. In the recent thread, we had 20:10 ayes vs nayes. So, is that consensus? Ideally, you would have folks making good arguments and try to build consensus (whatever that is). But, in the threads here, all I see is ayes saying he/she/they were the most notable name, nayes saying not transformational, not known in this part of the world. None of the conversation goes towards truly establishing consensus and then an admin would post saying consensus established. All-in-all, I still maintain that this constant bickering paints this project in an extremely bad light. Ktin (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  All-in-all, I still maintain that this constant bickering paints this project in an extremely bad light. I completely agree with this, which is why I'm supporting a proposal that I believe will reduce it as a first step towards getting rid of it. I would not have posted the blurb for Betty White, as I regard the "not transformational" comments as more significant than either the "not known here" or "she's popular" comments, as the latter two do not speak to her being (or not being) a major figure. There wasn't consensus against a blurb, but neither was there consensus for one at the time it was posted (imo). Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I feel consensus is one of those words that is just thrown in without folks knowing what it truly means ...: WP:ITN/A and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS leave a lot of room for interpretations w.r.t. ITN. Death blurbs, assuming no outright policy issues like V, NPOV, or BLP, basically come down to subjective arguments for "major figure".—Bagumba (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  But there should be reasonable bounds on what a definition of a "major figure" is, because right now, we have a system that is prone to being a popularity contest for "beloved" or "household names" which in no way could be the definition of a "major figure" as outlined at the ITN criteria page. When consensus is based on vote counting and not strength of arguments relative to the guidelines for ITN, we open the door for bias on Western people being given blurbs. We should be looking to be trying to look at "major figures" on the grand scale of things, including that this is a global encyclopedia. People that should be blurbed (like Desmond Tutu) will have clear demonstration of being a major figure on their article, and will help introduce more readers to figures they may not have been aware of (eg think of the approach Google Doodle takes when they celebrate seemingly obscure individuals who had contributed significantly to society). The idea of ITN being swayed as a popularity contest started with Carrie Fisher, and White's blurbing is just more of the same, it weakens the purpose of why we have blurbs and separate RDs at ITN. --Masem (t) 13:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  This comment seems to suggest Desmond Tutu's status as a popular and beloved household name (or "monumental figure") doesn't make him seem bigger than other humanitarian African archbishops, especially to his Western audience. I think it had a lot to do with it. Some viewers and readers just think religion, science or politics weigh more than music, comedy or pugilism on "the grand scale of things", and some don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I actually like Masem's comment of us thinking like Google Doodle. The experience that we should / could leave the reader with is Ah! I didn't know of this person/news. I learned something new. As opposed to, Ah! Yeah - another piece of information that is splashed all over the internet! Ktin (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I like it, too, just not the way it was juxtaposed with a guy five regular Westerners instantly recognized as the obvious choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  This S. H. Sarma seems like the kind of Indian non-Indians and Indians alike might like to know a little more about first. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Kind Editor, I took the liberty of nominating S. H. Sarma for WP:ITNRD on your behalf. Pleasantly surprised that the article looks pretty good. Minor touches and the article should be good for homepage. Ktin (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Counteroffer

We require recent deaths (not the dead) to have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, just like GNG. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't we do that already? 331dot (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No, any death notice suffices lately, even from Moneycontrol. Not knocking that example. Just sounds a bit obscure for something in the "In The News" box. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The death has to be added to the article, and that does require an RS (per BLP). So yes, we do still require that for even RD. This doesn't address the blurb problem, and as I said above, focusing on deaths that get wide coverage would create too much bias to English/Western/US+UK deaths over others. --Masem (t) 17:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to raise it to multiple independent RS. They don't need to be English. And it doesn't have to be super wide coverage, I'm thinking three unique obits. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Three obits would be met very easily for the kind of topics that y'all have been arguing about. e.g. White, Fischer, Madden Ktin (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly: even a B-list actor gets sufficient obits that would pass this line. --Masem (t) 17:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Three independent obits is a much lower bar than is useful for this discussion. Nobody even suggested Janice Long get a blurb yet I can find 10 different obituaries on the first page of google alone. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Ktin (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking RD, not blurbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm opposed to changing the bar for RD. The current system we have for that works well and avoids needless arguments, and none of the fears raised in the WP:2016 ITNRD RFC seem to have come to pass. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Btw, Moneycontrol is the Indian affiliate / operator of CNBC. The group is just as WP:RS as any other. Ktin (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. If it's easy to pass, it shouldn't be a problem. Just keeps the real fringe cases out. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not given this much thought other than a germ of an idea. But, I had mentioned once in a different thread. Truth is that there is a division of opinions based on region / geography and then concerns are perennially raised because a) a region believes that the nomination has not stayed sufficiently long to hear their opinion and b) a region believes that a news item does not hold as much relevance to their center of gravity.

This can be solved by dividing the project participants to three groups. Call them caucuses or call them desks. a) Americas b) Europe + Africa c) Asia. Tag participants to these desks and institute a guidance that an article gets posted after folks from a, b, and c, weigh in on the relevance. Once the three desks have participated, post onto the main page. Something along these lines can either help us (end the bickering) or divide this group further. I am hoping it would be the former. Ktin (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There's something weird about Group B, but aside from that, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I see filibusters after.—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Me too. It's almost inevitable that when you section off the nomination process into different blocs that you'll have Group B and Group C opposing anything Group A nominates just because it's U.S.-centric. Creating a bureaucracy won't solve the aforementioned issues. WaltCip-(talk) 18:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup. That is a risk for sure. But, frankly I do not see any way to end this group's bickering on this topic. Ktin (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

People just need to drop the WP:STICK. wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2021#(Posted_as_blurb)_RD:_Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh happened while North America was sleeping. Where was the procedural outcry then?—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should just add WP:MOVEON to our guiding principles. Ktin (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There were complaints at that ITNC thread, so yes, there was an issue then too. --Masem (t) 19:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Artifact

This issue is an artifact of ITN's current format which divides the recently dead into the RD and blurb sections. And the problem is that the RD section is a ticker which provides no information about the subject; just listing the name of their articles in a fast-scrolling stream. This means that there's a big difference in the coverage as only the blurbs provide a brief thumbnail of context.

This is unsatisfactory because recent deaths are the bulk of the nominations at ITN and so most of the nominators don't get to see much impact from their effort. The solution is to restructure ITN so that the recent deaths get more space and prominence. If all recent deaths got a short description and the occasional picture then you can put everyone into the same obituary section and the selection artifact then mostly disappears.

The blurb section would then just be used for more general news – the usual stream of bus plunges, football matches, rigged elections and so forth. Perhaps these could be categorised better to help readers find the type of news that they are interested in. News media commonly have explicit sections for Obituaries, Politics, Sport, Entertainment, Science and so forth. Perhaps we should try dividing ITN like this too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps shrink the current WP:OTD, removing a blurb or two there, allowing 6 RD entires with short dab-like descriptions. As it is, WP:ERRORS seems to have frequent reports about the quality of OTD's pages.—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

All recent deaths already get a relatively fuller blurb at Deaths in 2022. It's pipelinked for that very reason, beside names which should belong to only those whose deaths are news events. Is Ivan Mozgovenko really in the news? Of course not. He was just arbitrarily chosen for the spot anyone can get instead of Singh, Chilcott or Obi. RD should require at least a semblance of memory and eulogy from fans or colleagues. That's an objective way to separate the beloved/influential/newsworthy from those who were merely mortal and left sourced stubs. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I've since been appointed nominator of and accepted support for S.H. Sarma, whose obits are almost entirely rooted in a brief government statement. All good, though. The way things should be and the way things are are both fine ways to see things. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Before the whole change to include the RD line, we were still fighting over who even would be mentioned at ITN. And at that point, no, RDs did not outnumber the typical news story as it was hard to get an RD through. The RD solution is one that every notable person's death can be presented without having to fight over if the person was notable enough to be in the ITN box. But that also meant a sacrifice (such as no way to state the importance of the person) as to have that much content. The only reason RDs outnumber other stories is because it is a very easy bar to pass (short of the article quality issue) and thus encouraged for editors to nominate anyone that qualifies. But as IH points out, we have pages where space is not a premium that go into the details. So this is not really an answer here. --Masem (t) 13:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Nowrap vs. nbsp

At Template:In the news for Recent Deaths, there's a note to use {{nowrap}} for names with initials. For instance, we currently have {{nowrap|]}}. However, I notice on my display that the Naren Chandra Das entry currently shows broken up, with "Naren Chandra" on one line and "Das" on the next. Should entires with middle names be treated the same as those with initials? Should we be using:

1. Nowrap for the whole entry
2. Just a non-breaking space (e.g. {{nbsp}}) for spaces between initials or first and middle names?
3. Continue with no additional treatment for people w/ middle names in their title.

—Bagumba (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about the technical handling, but, Dan Reeves is split with Dan on one line and Reeves on another, on my laptop display. Ktin (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That's as expected, since there's generally no non-breaking space or nowrap applied for "normal" names. I guess my general question is why are names with initials given nowrap treatment, and should similar apply to other names—like ones with middle names, or your example of even plain "Dan Reeves".—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah! Got it. Thanks Bagumba. Have a nice day! Ktin (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe {{nowrap}} for all the names? Probably makes sense to keep first name and surname together. Spencer 03:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense and keeps it clean. Ktin (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The note, which I think I added, only says to consider nowrap. Initials hanging at the end of a line looks a little messy, and names with two initials (such as E. O. Wilson need to be kept together, but a regular two-part name probably doesn’t need controlling? The breaks in a name are transient anyway as we have a high throughput of RDs. Stephen 05:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Stephen: ... but a regular two-part name probably doesn’t need controlling What about a three-part name e.g. Naren Chandra Das (above)? Is the suggestion for nowrap for initials more for aesthetics than readability concerns?—Bagumba (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Proposal: Add PDC World Darts Championship to ITNR

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.

As this was brought up at ITNC, I will propose that we add the PDC World Darts Championship to the ITNR list. We have posted it four of the last five years including this year(last year we didn't). There are no darts events on the list currently. This event draws competitors from around the world, so there is potentially wide interest. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support The event has decent coverage in reliable sources, attracts competitors from all over the world, and the articles documenting its annual editions are in very good shape. As a result of all this, its conclusion has virtually become a regular item which gets posted on a recurrent basis.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Humor me for a moment. What is the benefit of listing something at ITNR? I think it is to avoid spending too much time debating the significance each year. Well, we just posted this nom in under 24 hours with 3 opposing !votes. What's the risk of listing something at ITNR? With time, an event can become less significant, or be overtaken by other events. But now it requires a supervote to NOT post something. - I think ITNR is well intended, but in practice we are subverting reasonable discourse: Noms at INTC require consensus to post; noms at ITNR require consensus to not post. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  If you would like to propose eliminating or altering the ITNR list, you are free to do so, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  First off, this IS a proposal to alter the ITNR list, so it completely within the scope of this discussion. Secondly, items nominated at ITNC are supposed to be posted only with consensus support, but items that lack consensus support can be posted if consensus existed to add them to ITNR at some point in the distant past. The Grammy's, for example, are frequently nominated for removal which fails. But the level of support would not be sufficient to post were it not on ITNR. So ITNR is serving as a purely bureaucratic block from ITNC acting according to its guidelines. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  The point of listing something at ITNR is to say that there is general consensus that the recurrent event should be posted, so that the discussion at ITNC should primarily be limited to issues with article quality and blurb, and very exceptionally if the specific event instance is really appropriate to post (as we have seen with some space exploration events); ITNC should not be used to complain that a certain recurring event as a whole should be eliminated from ITNR. Eg: when the Grammys next come up, discussion that talks about "grammys aren't relevant anymore" at ITNC are in the wrong place to channel that. This talk page would be where such discussion should be made for removal for those reasons. --Masem (t) 18:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Events can be and have been removed from the list. World's Fairs were recently removed. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also, when you see that an event has decent coverage in reliable sources with well-written articles which get posted on a recurrent basis, then that makes a strong case to add it to the ITNR list.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support listed near-consecutively since 2018, and a good "first blurb of the year" every year. While Darts isn't quite Soccer or even Cricket, if we can post Gaelic football stuff we can certainly post Darts. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I have nothing against event. I do not follow it as much. Is there a view of significance in terms of numbers of people who watch this event? With no disrespect to the nominator -- the points I see so far are that it was posted for 4 out of the last 5 years, which is undoubtedly good, but, a statement of significance will help. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm wondering what information you are looking for- my thinking was that "World Championship" speaks for itself in terms of significance. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  To be fair, "World Championship" could just be promotional like the World Series (which is ITNR but doesn't actually involve any teams outside of the US and Canada), but looking through the 2022 roster it appears that people from all continents were International Qualifiers, so I don't think that applies. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  It is the most important event in darts and has all the world's best players competing in it; you can't ask for much more than that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ktin In the UK the final got 1.5 million viewers on Sky Sports which requires a subscription. It's also popular in Holland; the 2017 final involving a Dutchman got over 2 million viewers. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  It is a proper world championship and the biggest event in the sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Support. Adding support based on the below points. For sure, more articles the better. Though I have never followed this game, it has won me a point in a trivia quiz competition. What is the maximum score in a game of darts on a single throw? Answer: 60, not 50. Ktin (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- KTC (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. In a very brief discussion last year it got support on the merits but wasn't posted for article quality issues. Combined with posting on the merits every other recent year, this seems exactly the sort of thing INTR should have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support ITNR is for events whose importance has been established. This event has been posted 4 of the last 5 years, and missed out once only due to article quality. It's the top event in the sport (and is a "proper" world championship), certainly covered more in sources than some of the other sports championships in ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Given that the article is updated in a timely manner (4 of the last 5 times), and it is considered the top organized event in a recognized but even if niche sport, that one ITNR item posting per year is not going to be a problem. --Masem (t) 01:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support No one noticed that Darts competition happens every year, roughly similar to what Wimbledon, snooker, or any other international sporting events that also happened at least every year. 125.167.59.138 (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The sport is not stable as there was a big split which is still reverberating. There will be a rival world championship in April and so the sport seems in a similar state to boxing, which doesn't have any ITN/R entries, even though it's a much bigger sport. A further factor is that pub culture is declining in the UK – the pandemic has been the latest nail in the coffin. We used to have a regular pub meetup in London but it seems to be dead now.

So, as there's no stability, the events should be judged on their merits. ITN/R should only be for the most enduring of events such as the Nobel prizes and even those have issues.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The rival tournament you speak of is the first occurrence of that event, making it difficult to know how significant it is yet. The NFL here in the US has briefly had rivals that later proved to be insignificant. I find it curious that you oppose this when I often see you advocate for other postings more generally. Feel free to propose adding a boxing event. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There has always been 2 darts championships, historically the PDC and the BDO one, and the WDF one is just a replacement for the BDO one. The PDC one is the one that attracts the top darts players (the #2 seed for the WDF tournament withdrew to compete at the PDC one, which shows the difference in class between the events). The fact that every year the PDC Championship has been determined important enough means it should be ITNR. Certainly more important than Gaelic football, which people chose to keep on ITNR last year.... Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

We enter an endless pissing contest if we try to determine which sport is more important than the other. Is NFL more important than the MLB? Is association football more important than gridiron football? Is cricket more important than football? And then should we only include one sport to rule them all as a result? As I've said before, I'm in favor of more diversity on ITN, not less. WaltCip-(talk) 12:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. There's zero harm in including one ITNR for a sport that doesn't already have one as long as we know said event is the highest competition in the sport, it has been around for some time to have established itself that way, it is reported in independent RSes, and we know that interested editors do bring the page regularly up to snuff for ITN quality expectations. This darts tourney hits the bulleyes for all four. (ha ha) --Masem (t) 13:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Me, I like to watch the World's Strongest Man contest every year as a Christmas tradition, since the BBC started broadcasting it about 50 years ago. That's a much more interesting sport than darts and has a much longer history but, again, you've got issues of competing organisers and contests. There are lots of sports at this sort of semi-pro level. For example, consider bowling. You haven ten pin bowling, crown green bowls, skittles, boules and whatever else. These have championships and some TV coverage, but lack status and stability. Boules was briefly an Olympic event but not any more. As sports come and go, we should judge the events on their merits rather than engaging in OR by claiming that some sports are special for all time and giving them promotional privileges. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are the same reasons that why it is very hard for us to post about boxing or MMA-type events, since there's no type of championship structure. But what's being suggested here is meant to widen potential sports, many like darts (or even perhaps the Strongest Man aspect) where the event is established and given coverage, and we are seeing result pages that make the quality grade for front page - that's the only limiting factor I see for Strongest Man in that they are primarily just tables and little else. --Masem (t) 13:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What's interesting for Wikipedians is that the current WSM is autistic – see CNN. The secret of success is obsessive dedication. And hearty meals! Andrew🐉(talk) 13:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a much more interesting sport than darts and has a much longer history - the first claim is purely subjective, and the second claim is purely fallacious. It's time to start calling out these kinds of posts as disruptive. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not an either/or choice. IF this WDF or any future new championship achieves significant prestige and viewership, there's nothing stopping us having both or swapping from one or the other, or for that matter removing PDC if its status decreases. As it stands, the PDC one has all the top players, with 10x the prize money. The new WDF championship isn't anywhere near competing on the same level yet. -- KTC (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is something stopping us: ITNR. ITNR gives preference for prior decisions. Suppose we add this now, & in a few years, WDF becomes bigger. There will be a proposal to post both or swap. 30% say keep PDC, 40% say WDF, 20% say both, 10% say removal all. Discussion devolves, and we do nothing. This happens all the time here (look at blurb talk above). And for what? What do we gain by adding this item to ITNR? Only the right to ignore those who dispute its significance. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That's nothing but a crystal-ball reasoning.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support imagine being that person who continually harps on about ITN being stale yet contrarily opposes another ITNR which would expedite ITN updates at least once a year assuming quality is assured. It even hits the "clickbait" requirements opined by some, with more than 200k hits in the past month. The event is huge, and there's no reason that I can see (certainly not opined by anyone in opposition) to refuse its addition to ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Clearly the top-level competition in a sport which is well-followed in a number of countries, and the articles in recent years have been good. We already post the top competition in numerous other sports with fewer global fans. I think the only reason this got missed out was because of the PDC/BDO split, which is scarcely even an issue any more. No reason for this to continue to be omitted from ITN/R. Effy Midwinter (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Some Scripting Support - Anyone?

Howdy! Do we have any scripting ninjas on this project who might be willing to join me in spending some time on some analysis of our work? I have some thoughts and would greatly benefit from partnering with someone who can write a few scripts and parse through some of our data. I am thinking of some very basic analytics. So, if someone has the skills and some time to exercise them (nights and weekends kinda thing) -- please do let me know. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Script ninjas tend to hang out at WP:BOTREQ, but will likely prefer you to give some more detail the sorts of tasks you are interested in running so they can assess what sort of scripts will work and how much coding effort will be required. Thryduulf (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press