| Revision as of 18:25, 22 July 2012 editHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,440 edits →Should we have a rule requiring a certain period of time for discussion before posting?: Bullshit← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:37, 22 July 2012 edit undoKhazar2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers191,299 edits →Should we have a rule requiring a certain period of time for discussion before posting?: please stop name-callingNext edit → | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
| :Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I '''oppose''' your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you. The decision to post that story was right, it was popular, and it was punctual. Would that all decision-making around here was so good. ] (]) 19:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC) | :Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I '''oppose''' your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you. The decision to post that story was right, it was popular, and it was punctual. Would that all decision-making around here was so good. ] (]) 19:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Bullshit. <small>(Are you trying to provoke me, or just being an idiot?)</small> ] (]) 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC) | ::Bullshit. <small>(Are you trying to provoke me, or just being an idiot?)</small> ] (]) 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::I'd say calling Alex an idiot is over the line, but the truth is that you've been over the line of ] throughout this discussion, in which your first post was to call BorgQueen's actions "quite immoral" and in which you then went on to insult the manners of American editors. I'd like to add my voice to several other editors and ask that you stop calling names and start contributing constructively to Misplaced Pages. Surely there are article some where you can be helping with that would cause you less rage than these discussions obviously do. ] (]) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Understand''', I really do. I think the African Union thing went up way too fast. WP is not a news ticker, and there is steady debate over whether or not we take too long to post, with solid arguments on both sides. I don't think more rules are the ticket though. Maybe as a culture we should stop treating "posted" as the end of the discussion, and be more open to changes and pulls. I've seen in the past comments like "well it's up now and that's not a good reason to pull". --] (]) 21:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC) | *'''Understand''', I really do. I think the African Union thing went up way too fast. WP is not a news ticker, and there is steady debate over whether or not we take too long to post, with solid arguments on both sides. I don't think more rules are the ticket though. Maybe as a culture we should stop treating "posted" as the end of the discussion, and be more open to changes and pulls. I've seen in the past comments like "well it's up now and that's not a good reason to pull". --] (]) 21:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:37, 22 July 2012
 | Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you. |
| SuggestionsPlease do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITNC. 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.
|
In the news toolbox |
|---|
References
Can we delete the References section at the bottom of WP:ITN/C? It's definitely unnecessary, and could be easily be replaced by a note at the top of the page, if anything. I have not seen anyone use ref format recently. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd support that. Khazar2 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- What does it hurt? What happens if someone does use a ref tag and the section does not exist? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be using references anyway. A sentence at the top of the page is far more practical than the section. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yet the questions remain: What does it hurt? What happens if someone does use a ref tag and the section does not exist? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then they see their error immediately, as on any other talk page. Khazar2 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hows that? I just tried it, didn't see any error or warning... --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- There should be. At the bottom of the page it will say something in red. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. I got the superscript number 1. Clicked it went no where. Scrolled down to the bottom saw nothing. See no reason to remove the references section, no evidence it hurts anything. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- There should be. At the bottom of the page it will say something in red. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hows that? I just tried it, didn't see any error or warning... --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then they see their error immediately, as on any other talk page. Khazar2 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yet the questions remain: What does it hurt? What happens if someone does use a ref tag and the section does not exist? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be using references anyway. A sentence at the top of the page is far more practical than the section. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I added that section a few years ago, because we kept running into errors with people using <ref> tags. Sometimes the problem was actually in one of the transcluded P:CE pages. Although it doesn't happen anywhere near as often now, it does occasionally come up. It really doesn't hurt anything, so I don't see any reason to remove it. Modest Genius 01:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Modest Genius. Let's leave it as is. Jusdafax 19:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have created article 2012 Russia floods
can somebody put it as internal link in the news about the issue? Superzohar 
Talk 07:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was actually about to come here and post the same thing. I found it odd that the link in the news item doesn't even point to the flood section of the main Krasnodar Krai article, and when you do get to that section, it refers you on to the 2012 floods article. dalahäst 22:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
ITN talk page tag
Proposal to mention the original blurb when tagging the talk page of articles with an ITN notice that it was featured on what day. This would be similar to what DYK uses. Heck we could also add a link t o see how amany views it got.Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Very good idea, many thanks! Is a poll needed or can this just be implemented? Jusdafax 18:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose ppl would need wider consensus and then an admin would have to change the coding in the tag to pase?Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that is probably the formal way to do it. An Rfc would be the method. While I don;t see this as at all controversial, I could be wrong. Jusdafax 03:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose ppl would need wider consensus and then an admin would have to change the coding in the tag to pase?Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Suggestions by Werldwayd
Comments in the opening two posts questioning whether this is the appropriate place to discuss the issue date from when the discussion was at ITN/C, before it was copied to here Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- User:Werldwayd has suggested several items at Talk:Main Page, complaining that ITN is not updated often enough. I am wondering if we have articles on any of these and, if we do, any of these will make it to ITN. Any thoughts? --BorgQueen (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know that this is the venue to have the discussion, but it's been on my mind for some time that ITN does move too slow, and is frankly too concerned with not being a ticker. A ticker would update every 10-20 minutes, ITN updates every day or two. I feel we let a lot of completely worthy items pass right by because we spend too much time debating, when a simple loosening up would both produce a more dynamic and timely ITN feature as well as help end the needless argument about what is and is not above whatever arbitrary bar we have. Basically, broaden what we allow but increase turnover rate; obviously unusually major news can get a holdover for a few days to allow for prolonged interest. And of course keep the requirements per article quality and updates. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not an issue. This isn't the right venue for the discussion in any case. Misplaced Pages is not a news ticker, and nobody can override the processes of ITN/C (because then we'll have every Occupy movement and dead 90-year old running across the screen without a check). doktorb words 06:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that there is probably going to be a dearth of stories at the moment because it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere and we're entering Silly season. IMO however we could do with relaxing our notability standards, which have become very strict largely through a process of "if my nomination last week wasn't notable, than neither is this one". Article update standards should stay the same though. I would be happy allowing news stories of just national significance in one or two countries, as long as there was a sizeable, decent, well-referenced article update. LukeSurl 08:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is 100% what I am trying to say. Sometimes the pissing contest evident in ITN becomes palpable and slows the whole process to a crawl. I agree that we should not relax article update standards. I do not think that by allowing even as much as 3 updates per day, with most items remaining for 24 hours or less, we would even be coming CLOSE to approaching newsticker status. What I am saying is that articles that see tremendous spikes in interest due to current events are often just left to rot rather than get posted because of our unreasonably high (and seemingly unpredictable) bar. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose all as presently presented as trying to make a WP:POINT. We have a procedure in place; he's welcome to come here and follow it and seek consensus for each of his suggested items, not post to T:MP complaining we aren't doing things his way. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider those suggestions as actual nominations per se, but the observation that ITN isn't updating as much as it should is still valid. It's an inherent problem with current ITN policy, and I for one would like to see a discussion as to how our policies can be changed for the benefit of the project. LukeSurl 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do believe there is some scope for improvement without much effort to show a few more current events as they are happening rather then past events, it is current events that Misplaced Pages has received praise for. For example recently Wimbledon could of been presented as "In the Wimbledon championship, Serena Williams and Agnieszka Radwańska qualify for the Women's final while Roger Federer and Andy Murray qualified for the Men's final." Maybe breaking them up into two sentences, as both individually are significant. Then amending once the results are in. It would be good if people here at ITN are more savvy and check tools such as WikiTrends most visited, WikiTrends uptrends and CurrentPruneBot current events, while as I write this right now they don't show anything major but on occasions the results from these tools runs rings around ITN. A useful first step would be to add these tools to somewhere visible within ITN page such as WP:ITN/C to raise awareness of them. Regards, SunCreator 12:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that the bar is totally arbitrary. Weather deaths in America == booo, weather deaths in Russia/EU == OMFG yes OFC right now speedy post. Disagree about the speed. I've said before that the news machine has to keep talking, even if there is nothing to say. Right now the Google world news #2 is "Clinton Talks with Egyptian Top Military Commander". #3 is "Wedding blast in Afghanistan kills 23, including local politician" #4 is "More rain forecast for flood stricken Japan" and #5 is "French president's companion regrets tweet". The Japanese rain might go up, and maybe the Afghan explosion, but good luck getting a nom passed for a french "tweet" or Clinton going to Egypt. The "ITN doesn't update often enough" line is absolute bollocks. Sometimes there are 3 updates in a day, other times 3 days without an update. Anyone who thinks that ITN doesn't update enough could start by writing quality updates to existing articles or new articles for current events. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Currently we have an aim to post something every 12 hours, but this is fairly meaningless as any argument for posting something borderline because there hasn't been an update in a while gets struck down. Generally news sites will have a "lower bar" for their stories on slow news days, but current policy/custom does not allow this in ITN. One radical idea is to consider every item on Portal:Current events for that day to be an automatic nomination. LukeSurl 15:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest the issue here is more a lack of follow-through than anything else. I considered nominating the credit card processing charges fines but decided against it: I figured the coverage would need building up and frankly I didn't have the time for that kind of work when it came out a few days ago. What I don't then do is complain that no-one has nominated it and put the work into the article(s) in question that I haven't. People on ITN/C are by and large more generous to well-developed articles that have good, solid coverage of the event in question, even if they are marginal in terms of notability. Changing three words and calling that an update and it therefore has the "right" to be posted is what prevents many noms going through. If people don't even put the effort in to even nomimate a story they feel appropriate, frankly I don't see they have a leg to stand on: if you are not willing to put the work into a story you consider important, who are you demanding does that work for you? Crispmuncher (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
- I would agree with the argument that INT moves too slowly on major stories that in many cases have a short "shelf-life"... unfortunately, trying to figure out why that is a fact (if you believe that) will involve looking into the editors who habitually vote down nominations. This would mean naming names and people would get upset, defensive and hostile. This situation has evolved over a period of years, so that now there is a battleground mentality built into many of the nominations. The ongoing problems with some editors being "anti-American" has not been a helpful development. Perhaps one way of defusing some of the tensions here would be to end posting any further sports blurbs unless they are notable for some other reason than the results of the match. It would be a start, in my view, that would allow us to focus on news items. Jusdafax 02:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
ITN/DC #2
ITN/DC #2 reads The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field.. Lately we've rejected some deaths on the grounds that "old people die, it's not news". This which would seem to contradict ITN/DC #2 in cases where the deceased satisfied the criteria, even if they were old. I suggest changing it to The deceased was currently active and widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field; or the death has a significant impact on his or her field. This wouldn't be enough to save Ernest Borgnine's nomination, but would eliminate most of the ambiguity. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- People who oppose on those grounds are oversimplifying their arguments. Why would being at the forefront of your field in the 1970s be considered any less notable to being synonymous with your field in the 2010s, provided the coverage is there? If anything, to achieve comparable coverage to a current "celebrity" (for want of a more inclusive word) long after your prime highlights your significance. —WFC— 21:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Trouble is that opposes which disregard ITN/DC #2 still seem to get counted. My suggestion would also disqualify some who retired more recently, not just people who packed it in 40 years ago. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can I point out that the meeting one or more death criteria does not equal an automatic post? ITNDC isn't ITNR. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then what's the point of ITN/DC at all if meeting one of the criteria doesn't satisfy the notability requirement? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's merely a set of suggested criteria. Other factors come into play. They were never meant to be "if a death meets one of these criteria, we will post it". —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- What other factors? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- The same factors that we consider when posting regular news items. Update, quality of update, newsworthiness, significance etc. Not every death is going to make it. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- So ITN/DC doesn't give an automatic pass on notability? If that's the case, why does it exist at all? If a death has to stand on it's own just like a ship wreck or space flight, why have separate death criteria? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- The same factors that we consider when posting regular news items. Update, quality of update, newsworthiness, significance etc. Not every death is going to make it. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- What other factors? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's merely a set of suggested criteria. Other factors come into play. They were never meant to be "if a death meets one of these criteria, we will post it". —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then what's the point of ITN/DC at all if meeting one of the criteria doesn't satisfy the notability requirement? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can I point out that the meeting one or more death criteria does not equal an automatic post? ITNDC isn't ITNR. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Trouble is that opposes which disregard ITN/DC #2 still seem to get counted. My suggestion would also disqualify some who retired more recently, not just people who packed it in 40 years ago. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just as a wild idea what about excluding from criteria 2 any deaths from the entertainment industries, sports, music, fiction (tv, films, radio or books). Then 'very notable in the field' becomes much less a question of personal taste. The person could still get into the news if the death was surprising in some way - overdose at 30 or similar, but death of old age or illness in old age is probably not really that notable in terms of effects on the world. EdwardLane (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- In principle that's not an unreasonable suggestion. In practise, an explicit exclusion of entertainment would simply shift the wikilawyering in the opposite direction: you would simply have people opposing every entertainment nom per DC#2, stating that the person is not Elvis or Michael Jackson.
I don't think there is a workable way to change the significance element of the deaths criteria, and I don't think it's desirable to try. I would instead favour a greater emphasis on factors such as article quality and the frequency of recent updates when deciding whether to post debateable deaths. Those factors are always considerations for any nom, I'm just suggesting that perhaps they should carry greater weight in this area. —WFC— 16:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we would ever get consensus on who to disqualify. Personally I would add former athletes and former politicians as well. To WFCs comment, I think even without ITN/DC #2 and an entertainment exclusion, Michael Jackson created such a media frenzy that we would look foolish not to include it. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that with an entertainment exclusion, anything less than Michael Jackson would be routinely opposed. I agree that we will never get consensus on who to disqualify, and would therefore argue that article quality should be given greater weight than it currently is. —WFC— 00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- The thing with Michael Jackson, or Elvis (if we'd been around at the time), is that both died well before their time, and while still very public figures. The recently debated deaths have been people not well known in the US, and people who have died of old age 20 to 30 years after doing anything significant. My perspective on the latter is that simply dying of old age is not really a significant event. We already have the Recent deaths entries on the Year articles for such people. Why should they score in two places? HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- The question is whether ITN is ticking along just fine without posting mid-to-high profile deaths such as Jon Lord, and that of course is a matter of opinion. In some months, the answer would be yes, but so far in July 2012, I'd say no. There are benefits to having a little flexibility (detractors might call it inconsistency) in the system, but it's only an asset if the underlying system is considered fair, and is consistent in its own way.
The de facto status quo ***seems*** to be that article quality and recent update frequency are considered when deciding whether or not to post. If so, surely it is time that we formalise it, so that those opposed to/upset about/furious that their votes aren't being counted at least understand why this type of post goes up? —WFC— 18:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that: if a subject is genuinely notable they will generally have a well-developed article, however, a well developed article is not in and of itself evidence of a high degree of notability: that can simply be down to a few fans putting effort in. That's good to have but it doesn't necessarily make it ITN worthy, especially when the neutrality of fans is not beyond reproach. An ITN listing needs the be reserved for the most highly notable individuals - we can't play the game of defining ever-narrower categories to make someone appear more notable than they actually are.
- The question is whether ITN is ticking along just fine without posting mid-to-high profile deaths such as Jon Lord, and that of course is a matter of opinion. In some months, the answer would be yes, but so far in July 2012, I'd say no. There are benefits to having a little flexibility (detractors might call it inconsistency) in the system, but it's only an asset if the underlying system is considered fair, and is consistent in its own way.
- The thing with Michael Jackson, or Elvis (if we'd been around at the time), is that both died well before their time, and while still very public figures. The recently debated deaths have been people not well known in the US, and people who have died of old age 20 to 30 years after doing anything significant. My perspective on the latter is that simply dying of old age is not really a significant event. We already have the Recent deaths entries on the Year articles for such people. Why should they score in two places? HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that with an entertainment exclusion, anything less than Michael Jackson would be routinely opposed. I agree that we will never get consensus on who to disqualify, and would therefore argue that article quality should be given greater weight than it currently is. —WFC— 00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we would ever get consensus on who to disqualify. Personally I would add former athletes and former politicians as well. To WFCs comment, I think even without ITN/DC #2 and an entertainment exclusion, Michael Jackson created such a media frenzy that we would look foolish not to include it. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- In principle that's not an unreasonable suggestion. In practise, an explicit exclusion of entertainment would simply shift the wikilawyering in the opposite direction: you would simply have people opposing every entertainment nom per DC#2, stating that the person is not Elvis or Michael Jackson.
- I've put together a few notes of my thought processes at User:Crispmuncher/ITN Deaths that considers this area purely in numerical terms - it doesn't evaluate the notability of a given candidate at all. I arrive at a figure for the top 42 individuals for all of western/anglophone popular music, and the top 60 on-screen western film and TV personalities. You can play around with the numbers a little bit but they are not going to shift by an order of magnitude, and I've given what I consider to be an obscene amount of emphasis to "celebrity" deaths as it is. How many of our recent posts really fit into those tightly defined terms? Are arguments based on narrow classifications such "big disco star or the 1970's" (Donna Summer) really enough to propel individuals into such elite groupings? Crispmuncher (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
- I see what you're trying to achieve on your talk page, but I see two big challenges with it. 1) People don't die at a predictable rate. What happens if we use up the 5.8 politicians per year, and then Vladimir Putin dies of a heart attack (extreme example chosen on purpose)? 2) I don't know that you'll ever achieve consensus on the numbers. It's also possible that I entirely missed the point. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- The average figures are precisely that: averages. If it was some quota to be fulfilled you'd have to round them to whole numbers at the very least. Over a pool of 900 people you are going to have fluctuations in the number of people dying in the short term. It is intended more as a tools to assess a particular candidate and how notable they need to be to merit posting in an objective figure: if a pop star could reasonably be considered to be among the op 40 most notable pop stars there's a good case for posting. If they probably wouldn't rank in the top 100 there's a very difficult case to be made that they merit posting barring a death that is itself particularly notable. This is ultimately a rough calculation for determining how notable someone needs to be to merit inclusion objectively.
- As for consensus, that isn't an issue. It is a statement of my position when considering deaths - I don't need consensus for that. You can dispute my conclusions as for any other contribution to a death discussion. I wrote it out and referenced it here for consideration - have we been too lenient on certain categories in the past? - rather than suggesting it as the basis for any form of policy. That's why I left it in user spaceCrispmuncher (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC).
- Thinking about this a bit more, the flexibility needed for keeping itn ticking over suggested above is an interesting point. Perhaps the death criteria2 could change on a sliding scale to exclude 'just another death' unless the timer is red and no other nominations are in the queue look to have broad consensus, or are looking to the admins like they are about to 'hatch' in the next couple of hours. If that's considered sensible then posting deaths in general based on dc2 could have 'and not unless no other post is available when the timer turns red'. EdwardLane (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see what you're trying to achieve on your talk page, but I see two big challenges with it. 1) People don't die at a predictable rate. What happens if we use up the 5.8 politicians per year, and then Vladimir Putin dies of a heart attack (extreme example chosen on purpose)? 2) I don't know that you'll ever achieve consensus on the numbers. It's also possible that I entirely missed the point. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've put together a few notes of my thought processes at User:Crispmuncher/ITN Deaths that considers this area purely in numerical terms - it doesn't evaluate the notability of a given candidate at all. I arrive at a figure for the top 42 individuals for all of western/anglophone popular music, and the top 60 on-screen western film and TV personalities. You can play around with the numbers a little bit but they are not going to shift by an order of magnitude, and I've given what I consider to be an obscene amount of emphasis to "celebrity" deaths as it is. How many of our recent posts really fit into those tightly defined terms? Are arguments based on narrow classifications such "big disco star or the 1970's" (Donna Summer) really enough to propel individuals into such elite groupings? Crispmuncher (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
The tag
A discussion is taking place at the Death of Jon Lord nomination, about the ready tag. I've always considered to be an indication that the article is ready for admin consideration. That the article is of sufficient quality and update of sufficient length, but that consensus for posting needs to be judged. The current instructions state:
"Items can also be marked as when they are ready to be posted, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked you should remove the header."
To me, that's a steer in the direction that where consensus is the sticking point, only an admin should remove a tag. I would like to suggest that it be changed to something like:
"Items can also be marked as when relevant articles have been sufficiently updated, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves. If an admin finds an entry marked as that doesn't appear to have consensus to post, they should remove the header."
Thoughts? —WFC— 03:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- That introduces a fundemental assymetry to the whole process. If anyone can add the ready tag but only admins remove it you'll be seeing it applied left, right and centre regardless of the merits of the case. In my view ready is best reserved for clear-cut cases as a prompt to the admins - leave it to the admins to determine the more problematic ones. This is especially the case when the same editor repeatedly adds the tag as happened in the case you reference. It seems the addition of a ready tag is generally viewed as an assertion that consensus exists, not simply that it requires admin review - that happens anyway, tag or not. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
- Disagree with your assertion that admins routinely check all noms without prompting. There are frequently several hours between clear consensus being established and posting (that is not a criticism, merely an observation). Articles marked as tend to get looked at more quickly (otherwise why bother?). By the way, here is the contribution history of the editor who removed the tag in question .
All I'm saying that if a non-admin is removing the tag, it should be for reasons of article quality, and these reasons should be expanded upon. If there isn't consensus to post an item then an admin clearly should be the one to remove it, and at that point it should not be re-added under any circumstances. —WFC— 03:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree with your assertion that admins routinely check all noms without prompting. There are frequently several hours between clear consensus being established and posting (that is not a criticism, merely an observation). Articles marked as tend to get looked at more quickly (otherwise why bother?). By the way, here is the contribution history of the editor who removed the tag in question .
- There was really no more consensus to post this than there was Ernest Borgnine (most recent death nom that didn't make it) or any of a dozen others. I was actually pretty shocked to see that this got posted despite no real consensus, apparently simply because someone tagged it as ready and the admin rolled with that. Crispmuncher is correct, if only admins can remove a ready tag, all that needs be done in a close discussion with no real consensus is for someone to post that it's ready, and an admin to take them on good faith, and the discussion is over with nobody really able to call a stop to that. I've actually argued for a more inclusive ITN, and don't object that strenuously to Jon Lord's posting, but the inconsistency is honestly starting to get to me. You may as well assign an admin to flip a coin on many of these nominations. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would respond to that by simply pointing out that an admin's raison d'être is to judge consensus. If the community judges an admin incapable of doing so, that user should not be an admin (or at the very least should not attempt to judge the outcome of discussions). —WFC— 05:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given that this item had no more consensus than numerous items that were not posted, and that the arguments for posting it were not what you'd call extraordinarily strong, what alternate explanation would you suggest? Without assuming any bad faith, I do respectfully state that I feel this was a decidedly premature posting, and the fact that it was marked as Ready seems by far the simplest explanation for that. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I keep saying this: the posting admins aren't robots. I marked this article as ready. It had several well considered supports, and 3 opposes, 2 of which were "old people die". The discussion had sat idle, the update was good, I marked as ready, with the expectation that an admin would evaluate the arguments and determine what consensus there was, if any. What really shocked me was the totally random drive by "NOT READY" by some unknown IP. I think WFC is absolutely right: the ready tag doesn't mean "robo-admin post this now" it means "learned admin please review the discussion and make a decision". If anything, I would support an admin marking a nom if the consensus is clearly not in favor. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- But consensus can change, so unless it's an overwhelmingly one-sided thing (in which case it wouldn't even be marked ), I don't think it's a good idea to even go near tagging items as "Rejected". —Strange Passerby (t × c) 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- What about or respectively? This would also serve to summarize the final outcome for any nom by looking at the toc. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- But consensus can change, so unless it's an overwhelmingly one-sided thing (in which case it wouldn't even be marked ), I don't think it's a good idea to even go near tagging items as "Rejected". —Strange Passerby (t × c) 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I keep saying this: the posting admins aren't robots. I marked this article as ready. It had several well considered supports, and 3 opposes, 2 of which were "old people die". The discussion had sat idle, the update was good, I marked as ready, with the expectation that an admin would evaluate the arguments and determine what consensus there was, if any. What really shocked me was the totally random drive by "NOT READY" by some unknown IP. I think WFC is absolutely right: the ready tag doesn't mean "robo-admin post this now" it means "learned admin please review the discussion and make a decision". If anything, I would support an admin marking a nom if the consensus is clearly not in favor. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given that this item had no more consensus than numerous items that were not posted, and that the arguments for posting it were not what you'd call extraordinarily strong, what alternate explanation would you suggest? Without assuming any bad faith, I do respectfully state that I feel this was a decidedly premature posting, and the fact that it was marked as Ready seems by far the simplest explanation for that. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would respond to that by simply pointing out that an admin's raison d'être is to judge consensus. If the community judges an admin incapable of doing so, that user should not be an admin (or at the very least should not attempt to judge the outcome of discussions). —WFC— 05:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect
 | This edit request to Template:In the news and In the news has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Template:In the news, please fix redirect to 2012 Burgas bus bombing.
--87.225.60.151 (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done: per WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- That rule says that ] shouldn't be fixed. But in Template:In the news there is ] so target in it should be fixed. --87.225.60.151 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not done: Unnecessary. WP:NOTBROKEN. The link is piped to fit into the sentence structure. --Hadal (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- That rule says that ] shouldn't be fixed. But in Template:In the news there is ] so target in it should be fixed. --87.225.60.151 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do you draw attention to people who do stupid shit?
You know often they're just doing it for attention, right? 82.33.88.252 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Presumably you have a particular item in mind. What is it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Should we have a rule requiring a certain period of time for discussion before posting?
A couple of recent items have been posted after discussions lasting for a pretty small number of hours, less than 6 hours for the most recent one that concerned me. Three hours for one a couple of weeks ago. It's not important now what they were. There have been several over the past couple of years. It's the time frame that bothers me.
Two points are important here.
Firstly, this very page emphasises that this is not an online newspaper. We are not a news ticker. We should not be in the game of breaking news. This article is called In the news. That means it should be a description of what's IN the news. That's a different thing from reporting what we think is the news. Our aim should be quality, accurate, well sourced content. This is very difficult to achieve if we rush.
Secondly, this is a global encyclopaedia. Our editors are located in every time zone. A discussion period of less than 8 hours guarantees that some will have no chance of seeing and contributing to a discussion, simply because they will be asleep. We must avoid parochial perspectives, whatever they may be. Items must be written from a global perspective. Because most editors don't sit at their keyboard all day when they're awake, a period less than around 20 hours will still exclude many.
I propose that we require discussion lasting at least 20 hours before any item gets posted. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose It's useful to have a link to obvious major news like, say, the death of Osama bin Laden or the Japanese tsunami well before the 20-hour mark. When an item has clear support, a quality update, and is a leading international story, or is ITN/R, I see no reason to delay. I might be persuaded to reconsider with some examples of items that wouldn't have been posted after 20 hours that were posted after 6, but I can't think of any examples of that off-hand. Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. The trouble is, it isn't one. You seem to have ignored everything I said, and just made the point of your own that some news is urgent. My point is that we are not meant to be reporting the news. We are meant to be describing what's IN the news. That doesn't require such urgency. I put a fair bit of effort into the reasoning above, and to have it all ignored as you just did is pretty annoying. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, sorry you're annoyed that we disagree, but we do; that's why I made a different point. If you back up your reasoning above with examples, I'm open to reading them, but right now the option of swift posting seems to me to do little harm and much good. Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not annoyed that we disagree. That's fine, so long as your reasons make sense. I'm annoyed that you posted as if I hadn't written 90% of what I had already said. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, sorry you're annoyed that we disagree, but we do; that's why I made a different point. If you back up your reasoning above with examples, I'm open to reading them, but right now the option of swift posting seems to me to do little harm and much good. Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. The trouble is, it isn't one. You seem to have ignored everything I said, and just made the point of your own that some news is urgent. My point is that we are not meant to be reporting the news. We are meant to be describing what's IN the news. That doesn't require such urgency. I put a fair bit of effort into the reasoning above, and to have it all ignored as you just did is pretty annoying. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Although postings can sometimes be a little hasty, this proposal is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. ITN isn't a news-ticker, but there is also no reason for it to hang about on principle. Update + consensus = post. In particular cases where there is good reason to wait, users should vote "wait" and posters should give those votes consideration.
- Also, ITN is about encouraging article improvement, and many of the folks who carry that out will want to see the fruits of their labour mainpaged while they are still ripe. I know of at least one case where an editor took a gamble on a particular news story happening and created a whole article in advance so that the story could be posted promptly. That sort of thing is to be encouraged. Formerip (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the argument about article improvement is a red herring. I cannot see that a few hours would make any difference at all. And if readers are seeking information on a current topic from Misplaced Pages, in the vast majority of cases they will go directly to the article, rather than via our In the news page. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- 20 hours is a long time in terms of the news cycle. Some editors appeared quite frustrated, for example, that it took that amount of time to post the Wimbledon finals. Formerip (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- So what? We're not supposed to be reporting news. We're reporting what's IN the news. It's the job of other organisations to maintain urgency, not us. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- 20 hours is a long time in terms of the news cycle. Some editors appeared quite frustrated, for example, that it took that amount of time to post the Wimbledon finals. Formerip (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the argument about article improvement is a red herring. I cannot see that a few hours would make any difference at all. And if readers are seeking information on a current topic from Misplaced Pages, in the vast majority of cases they will go directly to the article, rather than via our In the news page. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. For events that we can predict in advance, a time limit would lead to articles being nominated prematurely, before we have a clue what the article quality will be like. Unless we are going to start getting heavy-handed with prolific premature nominators (we should but we won't), a time limit would be a bad idea for that reason alone. —WFC— 01:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're getting at there. Maybe an example or two would help. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominating an election or sporting event that takes place tomorrow. One of the infamous "X" ones, for instance. A time limit would incentivise people to routinely nominate things a day early, before anything worthwhile has been written. We shouldn't be incentivising that sort of behavior, we should be clamping down on it with something only slightly gentler than an iron fist. —WFC— 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nah. You've lost me again. What's an infamous "X" one? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominating an election or sporting event that takes place tomorrow. One of the infamous "X" ones, for instance. A time limit would incentivise people to routinely nominate things a day early, before anything worthwhile has been written. We shouldn't be incentivising that sort of behavior, we should be clamping down on it with something only slightly gentler than an iron fist. —WFC— 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're getting at there. Maybe an example or two would help. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Besides the valid reasons already given, an attempt to defeat the purpose of policies such as WP:SNOW is not helpful to the encyclopedia. ITN is already horribly bogged down by consensus debate as is, I see no reason to introduce yet another way to ensure that the front page is constantly out of date. Not being a newsticker means it doesn't automatically get every single story, not that it must only contain last week's news. If the belief is that ITN should only post news that is no longer news in an untimely manner, then I would contend that at that point ITN is no longer useful or valuable and is merely a vehicle for pointless argument, and should make way for something more interesting on the front page. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's a straw man argument. It doesn't represent what I'm saying at all. Items on the Main age last for many days, often up until they are well past being breaking news. I see no problem with that. I doubt if you do. So why the haste up front? HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good reading. Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have every right to point out when I have been misrepresented. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- You doubt wrong. The fact that outdated news stays up is simply a byproduct of the slowness of ITN in the first place - the lack of replacement items getting updated, gaining consensus, and getting posted. Another element to ensure this slow as molasses state of affairs is not going to help. Even the very template at the top of the candidates page seems to advise a new item every 12 hours, and certainly every 24 hours; currently we regularly go more than 50 hours with no updates. Therefore, we are already failing to meet our goals. A mandatory waiting period is all but a blunt admission that the debate is more important than the front page template itself. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your post is based on the view that we post news. This is called In the news. That's a different thing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- What a stretch to imagine that something called "In the News" should post things that are in the news. I might recommend you start a topic to get consensus to rename this "Fairly Recent History." OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you really do want the latest breaking news, you should go to Wikinews. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The existence of WikiNews is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You asked for opinions by posting this, mine is that ITN is served by being timely and your proposal seeks to thwart that. The version of ITN you seem to favor doesn't sound like something I'd even support existing. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 03:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you really do want the latest breaking news, you should go to Wikinews. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- What a stretch to imagine that something called "In the News" should post things that are in the news. I might recommend you start a topic to get consensus to rename this "Fairly Recent History." OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your post is based on the view that we post news. This is called In the news. That's a different thing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good reading. Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's a straw man argument. It doesn't represent what I'm saying at all. Items on the Main age last for many days, often up until they are well past being breaking news. I see no problem with that. I doubt if you do. So why the haste up front? HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- No. Because those who object to news items being posted "too early" are nearly always unable to provide any other reason why they shouldn't have been posted. We should not be codifying bureaucracy to assuage empty complaints. -- tariqabjotu 02:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, what a sweeping generalisation, and overall ignoring of everything I've said. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- In summary, we're not here to make editors feel important, we're here to serve the reader. If posting while you're asleep serves the reader, then we should do that. —WFC— 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Did you notice that I didn't use the word "I" in my arguments at the start of this thread? HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- This thread exists because you, personally, did not get the opportunity to have your say before a story was posted. That does not make your point of view invalid, but it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. —WFC— 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Did you notice that I didn't use the word "I" in my arguments at the start of this thread? HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- In summary, we're not here to make editors feel important, we're here to serve the reader. If posting while you're asleep serves the reader, then we should do that. —WFC— 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, what a sweeping generalisation, and overall ignoring of everything I've said. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, but you used "me" twice in the first paragraph. HiLo, we're not dumb. The tactic of implying but not explicitly saying something and then crying "I didn't say that" and "That's a straw man!" when people respond to your implication is getting old. -- tariqabjotu 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- If that's an unwarranted generalization, why don't you name some examples -- as others have requested earlier -- where waiting twenty hours would have resulted in something posted not being posted? -- tariqabjotu 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say "unwarranted". I simply said "sweeping". HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Some of the point made here are valid. Many are not, and are just opinions without much in the way of sound reasoning behind them. That's OK. It's the reaction to be expected when a new and radical idea is presented. I didn't expect to receive a lot of support, but I did plan to trigger some thought over a longer period. Hopefully that's now under way.
Why do we call it In the news, and not simply News? HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose overly bureaucratic, among other issues. Hot Stop 03:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Removes administrative discretion and bogs WP:ITN down with bureaucratic policy, which we get quite enough of already considering how damn long it takes to post something. I eagerly await the bludgeon in response to my statement of opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, per all the points raised above. Also agree that this appears to be, even if not necessarily accurate, an attempt by one person unhappy that they've been prevented from opposing an item or two that went up "too quickly". In cases with overwhelming support there is no reason to institute an utterly arbitrary 20 hour time limit to please one person. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments guys. I don't agree with everything said. However, there's some good observations there, but not the ones about me. They definitely don't belong. Very sad. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I oppose your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you. The decision to post that story was right, it was popular, and it was punctual. Would that all decision-making around here was so good. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bullshit. (Are you trying to provoke me, or just being an idiot?) HiLo48 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say calling Alex an idiot is over the line, but the truth is that you've been over the line of WP:CIVIL throughout this discussion, in which your first post was to call BorgQueen's actions "quite immoral" and in which you then went on to insult the manners of American editors. I'd like to add my voice to several other editors and ask that you stop calling names and start contributing constructively to Misplaced Pages. Surely there are article some where you can be helping with that would cause you less rage than these discussions obviously do. Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bullshit. (Are you trying to provoke me, or just being an idiot?) HiLo48 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Understand, I really do. I think the African Union thing went up way too fast. WP is not a news ticker, and there is steady debate over whether or not we take too long to post, with solid arguments on both sides. I don't think more rules are the ticket though. Maybe as a culture we should stop treating "posted" as the end of the discussion, and be more open to changes and pulls. I've seen in the past comments like "well it's up now and that's not a good reason to pull". --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support in principle - I reached this discussion from the ITN discussion about the Aurora shooting. Although there is not a question in my mind that the blurb should have been posted and I was/am quite put off (to put it mildly) at the implication that we Americans go on shooting sprees whenever there's nothing interesting on TV, I think that a minimum discussion period is reasonable. My support has nothing to do with a desire to ensure that editors in all time zones have an opportunity to comment; quite frankly, we shouldn't care who comments as long as they do so intelligently. However, imposing a six- or twelve-hour delay might help to reveal any problems with an article's content before a blurb is posted, as well as provide better perspective about whether the news agencies themselves have any idea of what really happened. -- Black Falcon 02:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
ITN/DC #1
This should be easy, but I would like to suggest amending "at the time of death", to remove any ambiguity. Unless it shouldn't be there. This comes from a subplot in the Omar Suleiman discussion. Suggest: The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region.. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly agree. Otherwise it's ambiguous and triggers quarrels. And we can't include all ex-officeholders who might have been out of office for a long time. There are too many ex-presidents, ex-premiers and ex-ministers around the world to feature every one of them in ITN when they die. --RJFF (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given that this would easily exclude people like Margaret Thatcher, I don't see how I can agree with it. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 23:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- You should rely a bit on the common sense of users. No one would oppose Margaret Thatcher. But in the current version, we would also have to post the death of every ex-officeholder of any country. --RJFF (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding of ITN/DC is that it is a minimum standard for eligbility for posting ("The death must meet at least one of the following criteria") rather than forcing inclusion of an item that meets the standard. As you say, we don't post every major office-holder. Khazar2 (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- You should rely a bit on the common sense of users. No one would oppose Margaret Thatcher. But in the current version, we would also have to post the death of every ex-officeholder of any country. --RJFF (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
What is ITN/DC
I know I started two other threads already, and there seems to be some common disagreement on the whole purpose of ITN/DC. We probably won't reach any consensus, but it might be valuable to know where people are coming from on this. I understand the death criteria to be the way by which a nom clears "the notability hurdle". That is, if a death satisfies one of the three death criteria, then notability is established and all that's left is article quality and update. Comments? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding of ITN/DC is that it is a minimum standard for eligbility for posting, rather than forcing inclusion of an item that meets the standard. The current phrasing is "The death must meet at least one of the following criteria" rather than "A death that meets one of the following criteria must be posted." Khazar2 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)