| Revision as of 21:42, 3 February 2012 editHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,440 edits →And again... topic ban time?: If I ignored what you said all the time, how would you feel?← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:35, 3 February 2012 edit undoJusdafax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers101,924 edits →And again... topic ban time?: comment re:Hilo48's needless abuse - strongly suggest we bring fresh eyes into this situationNext edit → | ||
| Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
| :I honestly fail to see how you can say you "have been trying to improve this place" when so many of your comments have been so divisive and inflammatory. ] (] • ]) 21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | :I honestly fail to see how you can say you "have been trying to improve this place" when so many of your comments have been so divisive and inflammatory. ] (] • ]) 21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::And there we have a classic example of a problematic and shallow post here. You picked out a minor part of my post, repeated a point you had already made, and successfully ignored most of what I had said. This is not high level conversation. It's you pushing a POV without real conversation. If I ignored what you said all the time, how would you feel? ] (]) 21:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | ::And there we have a classic example of a problematic and shallow post here. You picked out a minor part of my post, repeated a point you had already made, and successfully ignored most of what I had said. This is not high level conversation. It's you pushing a POV without real conversation. If I ignored what you said all the time, how would you feel? ] (]) 21:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *HiLo48, I honestly feel we need fresh eyes on this situation. I want to get it straight what is and what isn't allowed here. In your very last comment you deflect Strange Passerby's observation, which I believe the record shows to be correct, that you are very often "divisive and inflammatory"... and then you call it "problematic and shallow." Just look at your current active comments on the project page. The rage you display towards a new contributor who came here to offer a suggestion, however awkwardly, is unacceptable. As for the thread above, which you cite as "high level", it is the same stuff you have been saying for years. You are beating a dead horse and driving away people. I turn away from you, nearly always, instead of get into your battles, but I draw the line when I see displays like the one in the "Don Cornelius" thread. Your angry bolded caps, overuse of exclamation points, and over-the-top hostility are patent abuse of collaborative editing. When confronted and warned, your defiance and inability to admit any wrongdoing are striking proof of your unwillingness to change your abusive style. In short, it's my view that you are an internet bully. Hopefully, uninvolved editors at ANI can put a stop to this abuse one way or another. ]]] 23:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:35, 3 February 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 |
|---|
Kiribati - unresolved issue repost rescued from Main Page errors
- this not very significant addition to ITN. The importance in the world wide political scheme of things of this small Pacific island is not demonstrated. I'm utterly surprised to see it get through. There was only ONE vote. It should be taken down. --Ohconfucius 14:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with Ohconfucius. Can a kind soul link me to the WP:ITN/R discussion that pertains to the decision to report all national-level elections on ITN? Colipon+(Talk) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The importance of several other items that appear in ITN is often not of worldwide impotance. But ITN is not a news ticker. Posting the national election results even for small countries has been around for ages, probably even before ITNR was written. --Tone 16:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a reason to keep it around, if there is good reason to change it. To my understanding, ITN is supposed to be informative, but first and foremost its purpose is to showcase good articles. To me, posting elections of microstates is not only irrelevant, but it also puts substandard articles smack in the middle of the website's main page. We could have, for example, posted the Supreme Court appearance of the Pakistan prime minister, which would be able to showcase the article for Yousaf Raza Gillani, which is in much better shape (and much more relevant to a greater audience) than any Pacific island election. But I stress again, if there is some sort of consensus providing a rationale for this, I would like to see it. But otherwise I plan on challenging this practice as it seems rather absurd. Colipon+(Talk) 17:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The importance of several other items that appear in ITN is often not of worldwide impotance. But ITN is not a news ticker. Posting the national election results even for small countries has been around for ages, probably even before ITNR was written. --Tone 16:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with Ohconfucius. Can a kind soul link me to the WP:ITN/R discussion that pertains to the decision to report all national-level elections on ITN? Colipon+(Talk) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Four out of six items...
...on ITN at the moment are about the United States. Since they are the four most recent of the six, this is likely to remain the case for a while. A little balance, please. 31.185.35.82 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome to propose items at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates. Otherwise, what do you suggest we do to achieve better balance? —David Levy 00:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we could have posting criteria related to balance. --FormerIP (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- What sort of criteria? Should we exclude/remove blurbs related to a country with a certain number/fraction of items, thereby making the section's turnover even slower than it already is (and possibly omitting noteworthy events with good article updates)? Should we set lower standards for items related to other countries, thereby reducing the section's quality? Or do you have another idea? —David Levy 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem that ITN has is that "important" news does not happen in a nice, geographically-distributed means around the world every single day. Either ITN has to chose to accept that - even if that means one region may be disprotionately covered on one day, and never covered on another day - or decide to fix a number of allowed events to be displayed per region, which could mean that the while one region is covering a major political shift in a country, another region may simply have the death of some minor celebrity (the only significant news story for that region for that day) next to it.
- Obviously, the former is the more practical and reasonable solution. The only thing to back-end that is to make sure that when ITN candidates are selected, we're selecting events in a region that may have more global significance, which is what is being done already. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've said several times before that we shouldn't passively post whatever "important" things come up with no discretion. It's quite possible that we might pass on something that would normally go up because there are too many similar items up already. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- If all of a sudden across the globe, there are 5 independent and unconnected political shakeups in national leadership, should we not include one since having 5 of 6 items on the same general subject considered too many? Obviously not.
- It is rather pointless to complain about the bias that the posted ITN stories have to region, type of news story, or the like, again, because news does not happen in nice patterned, regular segments spread evenly on region or topic. But we can set certain barriers on accepting of candidates without considering what's on the list already as to be more favorable to stories that have more meaning to a global communiting instead of just being restricted to region or type. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe that a blurb ever should be omitted "because there are too many similar items up already". At most, one of the "similar items up already" should be removed to compensate (perhaps with some cycling back and forth if the chronological gap is narrow). Even that is questionable, as it ensures that an older item persists longer (with one or more newer items receiving less exposure to enable this).
- If you believe that retaining the nine-day-old Costa Concordia item is preferable to introducing a hypothetical new item that meets our criteria and happens to relate to the United States, I disagree. —David Levy 04:54/05:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with David Levy. There is no legitimate concern to be had with similar items appearing at the same time. There is a concern with having too many or too few items in a country/region/issue on average. And the best way to address that problem is to put up more nominations. JimSukwutput 05:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- And the best way to achieve that is to be more receptive to unusual nominations, especially of things mainstream editors haven't heard of. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Think about European soccer for example. (This came up last year.) Baseball has only one annual championship that matters, at least in the English-speaking world. Soccer, on the other hand, has a whole bunch of stuff that all winds up around the same time: various domestic leagues, cup competitions, the Champions League and the Europa League. If they were spread throughout the year, many of them might get on ITN. But because they all conclude around the same time, we can't go and fill ITN with nothing but soccer. So we have to exclude some things in the spring that might go up if they happened in the fall. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know very little about association football, but I recall encountering arguments that not all of those events are sufficiently important for ITN (irrespective of timing). And it's highly doubtful that all of them result in substantial article updates in a timely manner.
- If multiple ITN-worthy events in a particular sport happen to occur in rapid succession (with the relevant articles properly updated), I see no reason why cycling them in and out isn't a viable alternative to outright omission. —David Levy 00:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Occasional coincidence of events might mean that such a concentration of blurbs will happen: a few months ago there were equivalent comments on a heavy Euro-centric weighting in the template (or was it Asian?). But rather than simply dismissing such occurrences as a random statistical event, we should use them to check the structures we have for systemic bias. I believe that the Wiki readership bias towards the geeky (two items about the internet) may have been more responsible on this occasion, but the move towards following the (Anglophone, and primarily US/UK) media, and following rather than leading page hit data, rather than seeking stories for their intrinsic, encyclopaedic interest, has made the likelihood of enshrining systemic bias on ITN more likely. Would/Should the stories (US or otherwise) have appeared in ITN if they had happened elsewhere in the world? Kevin McE (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the case of today's heat generating discussion, Joe Paterno's death, one can't give a meaningful answer to that question. His situation is unique to the USA. Other countries don't do college sport the way the US does. It's quite possibly a valid nomination, but as I see it the heat has been generated by American editors being unwilling or unable to properly justify the nomination. Too many just say things like "Best college football coach ever", without attempting to explain the significance of college football in America to non-Americans. That could be done, and these "unusual" nominations could work. The same high quality of argument is needed when non-mainstream items from other parts of the world are nominated. I suppose what I'm arguing for is better quality justification and discussion. Maybe that's a forlorn hope, but one can always dream. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the problem we run into. Bob in America wakes up and Joe Paterno is on all of the TV and news radio stations and websites. "Everyone" in his world knows who Joe Paterno is. Everyone in his world knows it's a big deal. So he nominates the death for ITN. Halfway around the world, Gunter logs on to Misplaced Pages and finds that some guy in America had the gall to nominate the death of an amateur sports coach that "nobody" has heard of (in his world) for ITN. How ridiculous. Gunter says who cares, amateur student sports is no big deal. Bob sees that and is aghast, because in his world, college sports is huge. So we've got two people coming from opposite worlds, both of whom think the other is being ridiculous. This is how vituperative debates start.
- Bob doesn't know that he has to explain why a college football coach would be important, because in his world, it just is. To him, it's like trying to prove that the sky is blue. Most people would have no idea how to respond if, say, a blind person challenged him on that fact. (Some people would be able to discuss wavelengths or whatever.) Similarly, few Americans would be able to explain why the death of someone like Joe Paterno is a big deal in a paragraph, other than by using things that wouldn't impress overseas people anyway, such as his number of wins and national championships, or by saying, "Trust me, it's huge over here." I have done my best in these sorts of situations to cite things like TV ratings and attendance (or, in the case of things like the election of a state governor, the powers of state government), but it hasn't seemed to have had much of an effect. In all probability, you'd have to spend some time in America to understand. I'm sure there are things that happen elsewhere that Americans can't grasp the importance of for the same reason.
- So what can be done about this? I think we should make clear than an event does not have to be of world-shattering historical "importance" to be on ITN. I don't think there is any way to measure that, anyway. The murder of Stanford White wasn't "important" in any cosmic sense, but it's in my book of "important" New York Times front pages from the 20th century. As long as the event is not trivial, like something involving Paris Hilton, the decision on whether to post it should be based on factors like the quality of the article, timeliness, reader interest, etc. And if the event is played highly by the "serious" media (the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the London Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Globe & Mail, etc.), it can be deemed non-trivial. That is not to say that we should lessen our standard, but rather that we should apply different ones focusing on the kinds of other factors mentioned above. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- My view is that Bob should at least make some effort to give his nomination a global perspective. Most times we get none. That's guaranteed to lead to argument. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Mwalcoff, you're absolutely right that ITN is too hung up on determining that news is "important" (according to some incredibly unclear and variable yardstick). But I don't think the problem is Bob in America and Gunter in Germany not seeing eye-to-eye. It's just that we have a surfeit of American Bobs. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being American or having been Christened Bob. But we have a problem that stories coming from Gunter's home town get a tougher time on ITN because, even though it's a big story and the article and update are great, there will be multiple Bobs opposing it because they don't see it on CBS.
- The reason not to post the Joe Paterno story isn't its obscurity outside the US (note: possibly within the US as well, from what I can tell), its just the fact that is has come up at a moment when ITN's systematic bias is already too apparent.
- As always, what ITN needs is some proper written down guidance. --FormerIP (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- What Bob needs to do is to let Gunter know how his nomination will affect Gunter. That's what I did with the resolution of the NBA lockout. Who in ITN cares how it'll affect Americans? You'd have to explain how it'll affect the Gunters of the world lest you're post will be describe variously as US-centric or stupid.
- Well of course if it's Gunter's turn to nominate it's not always reciprocal. For example on the nomination of EU embargo of Iranian oil, nobody explained how it'll affect Bob (or Gunter), nor anyone is bitching about the lack of explanation. Perfectly OK, though... even though only 20% of Iran's oil goes to Europe and most of it goes to Asia. –HTD 04:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- If that post is full of attempted sarcasm or irony (which I suspect, but can't be sure about) please be aware that such approaches don't work well on the web. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that is basically true. In nominating the resolution of NBA lockout, I threw out the factors on how it'll affect Americans (frankly that would've made the nomination worse and would not had helped) and instead cited factors on how it affected Europeans (heck even Africans), and some of the usual suspects (excluding you, if I may add, but your reasoning was different on my cited factors) still opposed! (There are just some people in ITN, once they see "U.S." or "American" or even "Canadian" would oppose in default, no matter the merits.) And, as of my previous post no one is bitching about the lack or reasoning in the EU boycott of Iranian oil. It's in the archives, you can look it up. –HTD 04:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can think of a number of possible ways of responding to the charge that ITN has a pro-American bias, but "think about how those American stories affect Africa" doesn't seem to me like the best one. --FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Most ITN nominations do affect only one country, except for international relations (including wars) and sporting events involving teams from more than one country. The Joe Paterno story could've been more convincing if someone said "This guy coaches a team that plays in a stadium bigger than Old Trafford or Camp Nou" or something like that... but those could've been dismissed anyway. –HTD 05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether Bob or Gunther (or Hu, etc.) is nominating, they need to do a better job explaining why it's important. Maybe we could add something to the editnotice explaining why people need to do this. Hot Stop 00:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can think of a number of possible ways of responding to the charge that ITN has a pro-American bias, but "think about how those American stories affect Africa" doesn't seem to me like the best one. --FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that is basically true. In nominating the resolution of NBA lockout, I threw out the factors on how it'll affect Americans (frankly that would've made the nomination worse and would not had helped) and instead cited factors on how it affected Europeans (heck even Africans), and some of the usual suspects (excluding you, if I may add, but your reasoning was different on my cited factors) still opposed! (There are just some people in ITN, once they see "U.S." or "American" or even "Canadian" would oppose in default, no matter the merits.) And, as of my previous post no one is bitching about the lack or reasoning in the EU boycott of Iranian oil. It's in the archives, you can look it up. –HTD 04:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- If that post is full of attempted sarcasm or irony (which I suspect, but can't be sure about) please be aware that such approaches don't work well on the web. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stupid question: have we considered the use of a point system ala what's doing at TFA, to weigh how to select ITNs as to help? I've got some ideas how to apply that to ITN but in my mind it's not finalized. But the approach would involve giving more points to areas where coverage generally tends to not occur (eg South America, Africa), to international influences, to high newsworthy topics like national leaderships, wars, large-scale natural disasters, and less to things like sports and entertainment, and some points for the nature of the article page that (new verses old). This would be in addition to any consensus for inclusion. But, as I said, it's only an idea without hard details, but I think it would help prevent any one area (region, field, etc.) from having too many stories bubble up when its not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if a "point system" is the best way to go. Sounds to hard-and-fast to me. Your ideas are along the right lines, but there needs to be editorial discretion as to what gets up. I'm going to start on my own version of new ITN criteria as soon as I get a chance. I think what the criteria should say is that we should "strive for geographic and subject diversity" in what we include. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, well you're likely to have my support on that. --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that points aren't a very good idea: TFA is designed to be plannable well in advance, while with just about everything except elections and major sporting events, the types of things that belong on ITN cannot be predicted to occur when they do. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- An event involving Sweden and Norway (combined population: approximately 14.5 million people) is "international". An event involving only the People's Republic of China (population: more than 1.3 billion people) is not. Do you see why this isn't a reliable means of gauging an event's notability (and why the "international importance or interest" criterion was eliminated)?
- This is not to say that an event's international impact cannot be a significant factor. But this is merely one of numerous considerations dependent upon context, not part of a checklist to which points can be assigned. —David Levy 10:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that would be something to account for in the system, understanding that "international" generally has to mean "non-neighboring countries" or even outside of the region (given the European Union, for example). I'm not saying that's the only news that should be posted but events that have worldwide impact (direct or indirect) should be given more weight than an event that affects only two or three countries. But again, I'm not firm set yet on this idea, and still tossing about a rational approach to it.
- One thing I do ask, to confirm: is the goal of ITN to be a news ticket that happens to include links to recently-updated articles, or is it to highlight recently updated articles (as to draw in editors) of events that are in the news? I would hope its the latter, as that's the metric that should be driving the decision, and not just because its big news. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that would be something to account for in the system, understanding that "international" generally has to mean "non-neighboring countries" or even outside of the region (given the European Union, for example)
- That isn't a reliable criterion. If North Korea were to launch a nuclear missile at South Korea, this probably would be widely regarded as the most important news of the day.
- Context is key, and there's no good way to account for it in a points-based system. (Attempting to plan for every type of scenario would only make matters vastly more complicated.) A checklist is no substitute for human judgement.
- I'm not saying that's the only news that should be posted but events that have worldwide impact (direct or indirect) should be given more weight than an event that affects only two or three countries.
- All else being equal, that's true. And one could argue that the hypothetical Korean nuclear missile launch would indirectly impact the rest of the world...which is exactly what would occur under the current setup (not that the event wouldn't be ITN-worthy even without non-Korean impact). We already consider such factors. No point system is needed.
- One thing I do ask, to confirm: is the goal of ITN to be a news ticket that happens to include links to recently-updated articles, or is it to highlight recently updated articles (as to draw in editors) of events that are in the news? I would hope its the latter, as that's the metric that should be driving the decision, and not just because its big news.
- Agreed. And unless and until there's consensus to the contrary, this remains ITN's primary purpose. —David Levy 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's why there would be multiple criteria. Take the earthquake in Japan from last year. Is it an "international" event as I've called it? No, but heck yes it would be posted no question. It's other facets - an earthquake that killed a number of people, billions of dollars in damage, the fact that earthquakes are rare - that all lead to the obviousness of why it should be posted.
- But as I juggle this idea around in my head, I'm thinking that while a point system is not good to promote an ITN candidate to an item, that it could be used to say how long an item should last in the ITN box, which gets back to the original complaint. Again,I don't have a hard system yet to propose, but the idea is that on posting (so consensus has been gotten first) the story is assigned a point value based on various factors. As a very simplistic approach, that story will always displace the currently lowest-scoring item in the box (ties would remove the oldest-posted); on each day, each current story has its score decrease by 1, as this then provides for nature decay, allowing very significant stories (the Japanese quake, or the hypothetical war between NK/SK) to stay on several days while a story with a weak score but otherwise passed may onyl be up there 24 hrs or less. There's some other mechanics to it that I have to figure out but this doesn't override the current consensus based discussion. What I do want to emphasis is that I'm trying to figure out a system that nullifies the need to complain "we have too many US articles, oppose this ITN/C nom", and instead allow the focus on the quality of the news item and the state of the article, rather than what's in the ITN box already. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just a note. I don't ITN has, or should have, any requirement that events should be "international" in the sense of having occurred in or involving more than one country. Events should be of international significance in the sense that they are major news in multiple countries. Parochial stories that are of very limited interest to readers outside their home countries should be avoided. Opposing the Japan earthquake story on the basis that it happened in a specific place ought to be seen as an obvious non-starter. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's why there would be multiple criteria. Take the earthquake in Japan from last year. Is it an "international" event as I've called it? No, but heck yes it would be posted no question. It's other facets - an earthquake that killed a number of people, billions of dollars in damage, the fact that earthquakes are rare - that all lead to the obviousness of why it should be posted.
- Exactly (excepting the part about earthquakes being rare, though those of that magnitude are). Various factors collectively (i.e. not in isolation) determine an event's importance, which therefore cannot be properly gauged by assigning point values to individual attributes. We must evaluate the event as a whole.
- But as I juggle this idea around in my head, I'm thinking that while a point system is not good to promote an ITN candidate to an item, that it could be used to say how long an item should last in the ITN box, which gets back to the original complaint.
- The last thing that we need is another source of arguments. ("This is worth a total of five points." "No, it clearly is worth only four points, as per criterion 8b." "8b doesn't apply because this is covered by 3e and 7a." "You're only saying that because you want your country's item to score higher." "Of course someone from your country would think that.")
- Items are persisting too long because we aren't posting enough of them. Removing "lower scoring" items before they scroll off will only ensure that other items linger even longer.
- Again,I don't have a hard system yet to propose, but the idea is that on posting (so consensus has been gotten first) the story is assigned a point value based on various factors.
- As noted above, such point assignments simply wouldn't make sense. An event isn't the sum of its parts.
- As a very simplistic approach, that story will always displace the currently lowest-scoring item in the box (ties would remove the oldest-posted); on each day, each current story has its score decrease by 1, as this then provides for nature decay, allowing very significant stories (the Japanese quake, or the hypothetical war between NK/SK) to stay on several days while a story with a weak score but otherwise passed may onyl be up there 24 hrs or less.
- That isn't what I consider "simplistic". It greatly complicates a system that some believe already presents a barrier to participation.
- And I don't see how it pertains to the original complaint (which had nothing to do with the events' importance).
- To improve variety, we do occasionally remove items slightly out of order. For example, if we have two election items and we're adding another, we might remove a six-day-old election item and retain a week-old non-election item. That addresses the type of issue discussed above.
- What I do want to emphasis is that I'm trying to figure out a system that nullifies the need to complain "we have too many US articles, oppose this ITN/C nom", and instead allow the focus on the quality of the news item and the state of the article, rather than what's in the ITN box already.
- I don't understand how focusing on one concern (assuming that it actually is one) would nullify complaints about another. —David Levy 00:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I must put my name against a point scoring system. Can you imagine how long it would take to devise the system, never mind record each vote which comes from it? The timer box would need a new colour to record when the gap between postings moves into weeks. Point systems are a wholly impractical solution. doktorb words 06:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- To illustrate the aforementioned fact that this phenomenon occurs in relation to various subjects, I'll note that of the five current items, three are about the European Union (mentioned by name) and zero are about the United States. —David Levy 02:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Joe Paterno
So, I noticed that the discussion had been archived, but couldn't find any administrator comments on either the top or bottom. I assume that it didn't get enough consensus, but I'd still like a description about the final comments on the issue. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was closed by Wizardman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with the edit summary "let's just end the bad blood; consensus is clear now anyway." I have to agree with him, it wasn't going to be posted and was turning into a pissing contest. Hot Stop 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please ask the admin directly if you would like comments. This page does not get as much attention. And we dont need another heated debate on something that got rejected on ITN/C. -- Ashish-g55 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that consensus was clear. It was clear there was no consensus.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- There was a consensus. The previous nomination, which was posted, had a backstory which involved numerous votes from all sides, and discussions spreading out from almost every individual vote. This current nomination had numerous votes from all sides, and elongated discussions spreading out over the same old covered ground over days and days and days. The consensus was largely negative, broadly agreeing that a natural death of a controversial figure was nonetheless not notable enough under the circumstances. Nineteen "Oppose" votes verses 12 "support", with additional neutral comments abound. I'd say the result to close the nomination was perfectly sound. doktorb words 23:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Only on Misplaced Pages could 19 out of 31 (if that's really what the count was) be described as a consensus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- There needs to be a consensus to post an item for it to be posted so with only 12 out of 31 (using the above numbers) supporting it, it was unlikely to turn around, so close to stop any drama was probably the best action. Mtking 06:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Only on Misplaced Pages could 19 out of 31 (if that's really what the count was) be described as a consensus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- There was a consensus. The previous nomination, which was posted, had a backstory which involved numerous votes from all sides, and discussions spreading out from almost every individual vote. This current nomination had numerous votes from all sides, and elongated discussions spreading out over the same old covered ground over days and days and days. The consensus was largely negative, broadly agreeing that a natural death of a controversial figure was nonetheless not notable enough under the circumstances. Nineteen "Oppose" votes verses 12 "support", with additional neutral comments abound. I'd say the result to close the nomination was perfectly sound. doktorb words 23:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that consensus was clear. It was clear there was no consensus.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please ask the admin directly if you would like comments. This page does not get as much attention. And we dont need another heated debate on something that got rejected on ITN/C. -- Ashish-g55 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Order of entries
Curious, when the violence in Nigeria was added, why wasn't it put at the top? Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Events are ordered by when they occur. The attacks in Nigeria occurred on January 20, while the Croatian referendum occurred on January 22. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it time to review this area of the main page ?
I get the feeling that it may be time to look again at the aims and procedures of this area of the main page, we currently have five stories listed covering 7 days, I would like to hear what others think. Mtking 10:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes there are multiple slow news days and other times there are 5 items on one day. That's just how events are sometimes. I don't think there are drastic issues at ITN/C or elsewhere leading to a general failure of the section, at least at this point in time. Spencer 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- More importantly than rethinking the merits of ITN, we should probably be looking into why participation has so rapidly declined in such a short period of time. I'm thinking that this happened in wake of the SOPA protests, which may indicate temporary complacency (or exhaustion) due to the recent success of that effort, or perhaps that we've lost some regular contributors who departed (or at least distanced themselves from administrative processes) due to their objections over it. — C M B J 00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's likely that right now, it is a slow news period. I admit I'm not always up to date on events, but there's really very little happening on international scales of documented note. Tomorrow, two dozen things could happen. I think its fair that when news is thin, we can reduce the number of items shown (though no lower than 4 maybe?) so it doesn't look as stale. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Despite any total number of events, I still personally think it's a bit unusual to see so few people actively involved in the process. There's been at least a couple controversial stories nominated in the past week that have garnered considerably less attention than would be expected, and I can see that the Cyclone Funso nomination has essentially been ready for 24-76 hours (depending on interpretation) but still hasn't been posted. — C M B J 00:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Things like that lack of posting a ready and seemingly non-controversial event like that cyclone are pretty discouraging. What's the reason? HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't for a second think that this section has failed, I do think that over time we may have lost sight of the aims here, and think that maybe restating them and a review of how we work and WP:ITN/R could produce some improvement, I don't have the answers here, but I do get the feeling that the current way of working has lead to a situation where things are slow to get posted, we have periods where nothing changes on the screen, I believe that we should aim to post something new every day, as i type the last new entry was added over 36 hours ago, are we really saying that nothing has happened of notable interest, i don't think so. Is it that other editors don't nominate items because of the aggravation of nominations perceived to be single country or single state centric? Mtking 01:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your latter point is important. Single country nominations are a huge problem, especially if it's about something culturally unique to that single country, with the obvious example from recent times being American college football. I think most editors the world over can understand the significance of top professional sport in any country, whatever the sport, but an amateur sports event associated with schools being so important is unique to the USA. So we have non-American editors understandably saying that it cannot be important (for the perfectly good reasons I just gave), and American editors saying that it simply IS important, without seeing things from the perspective of editors from places where it's not. One of my regular editing jobs here is re-correcting spelling "corrections" by English speaking editors who are blissfully unaware that other spelling variants than their own even exist. It's similar with this American college football stuff. Those proposing such material have to be willing AND able to present it in a way that acknowledges that editors from most of the rest of the world have a very different perspective. This is a global encyclopaedia. Editors must be encouraged to think and write for a global audience. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because someone has just responded, I was reminded of a point I made on the ITN/C page a few hours ago. We currently have a proposal there titled "Action of 25 January 2012". In my country, a response to that might be "WTF?' Unfortunately it's linked to an article with exactly the same meaningless title. At least some editors there are discussing the name, but seemingly getting nowhere fast. That has to be a something-centric-post. Dunno what the proposer was thinking of at the time. Just the US? Just US Navy? Just Seals? Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a global audience. For as long as we get rubbish nominations like this, we will get rubbish responses, and rubbish discussions. While the last thing I want to do is discourage activity on the page, we MUST aim for higher quality discussion.
- I'm wondering if the notes at the top of the page could be added to with some BIG, BOLD advice to editors to make sure what they write is meaningful in a global context, and likely to be easily understood by editors from a different cultural background. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think that the Action of 25 January 2012 situation embodies much of anything typical; I've seldom encountered comparably bizarre affairs anywhere on the project. — C M B J 11:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've just tried to follow my own advice in my "Support, and further explanation" post in the "2012 European Men's Handball Championship" nomination on the Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates page. That sport happens to be one that is almost unknown in some of the areas where a lot of our editors come from. . I'd be interested in feedback on how this looks. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to say "And further explanation". All supports should have some rationale, something like "per nom" or "per so-and-so" at the very least. For more controversial items, detailed supports help posting admins determine consensus better. So I think "and further explanation" is redundant; put "support" and then your reasoning. Spencer 03:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is why I think the criteria page out to say, straight out, that to the extent that reader interest is important for an item, it only matters that a significant number of readers would be interested in the topic, no matter how geographically concentrated they are. I do agree that people who make nominations should demonstrate things like Joe Paterno's death are a "big deal," and I think that can be accomplished by demonstrating the events' play in major media and the degree to which people are or may be looking for information on the item. I opposed the team handball entry (and the water polo entry) in the complete absence of any evidence that it is a major event or that a lot of readers will be looking for information on it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to say "And further explanation". All supports should have some rationale, something like "per nom" or "per so-and-so" at the very least. For more controversial items, detailed supports help posting admins determine consensus better. So I think "and further explanation" is redundant; put "support" and then your reasoning. Spencer 03:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your latter point is important. Single country nominations are a huge problem, especially if it's about something culturally unique to that single country, with the obvious example from recent times being American college football. I think most editors the world over can understand the significance of top professional sport in any country, whatever the sport, but an amateur sports event associated with schools being so important is unique to the USA. So we have non-American editors understandably saying that it cannot be important (for the perfectly good reasons I just gave), and American editors saying that it simply IS important, without seeing things from the perspective of editors from places where it's not. One of my regular editing jobs here is re-correcting spelling "corrections" by English speaking editors who are blissfully unaware that other spelling variants than their own even exist. It's similar with this American college football stuff. Those proposing such material have to be willing AND able to present it in a way that acknowledges that editors from most of the rest of the world have a very different perspective. This is a global encyclopaedia. Editors must be encouraged to think and write for a global audience. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Despite any total number of events, I still personally think it's a bit unusual to see so few people actively involved in the process. There's been at least a couple controversial stories nominated in the past week that have garnered considerably less attention than would be expected, and I can see that the Cyclone Funso nomination has essentially been ready for 24-76 hours (depending on interpretation) but still hasn't been posted. — C M B J 00:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's likely that right now, it is a slow news period. I admit I'm not always up to date on events, but there's really very little happening on international scales of documented note. Tomorrow, two dozen things could happen. I think its fair that when news is thin, we can reduce the number of items shown (though no lower than 4 maybe?) so it doesn't look as stale. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- More importantly than rethinking the merits of ITN, we should probably be looking into why participation has so rapidly declined in such a short period of time. I'm thinking that this happened in wake of the SOPA protests, which may indicate temporary complacency (or exhaustion) due to the recent success of that effort, or perhaps that we've lost some regular contributors who departed (or at least distanced themselves from administrative processes) due to their objections over it. — C M B J 00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Elfstedentocht
It seems that there is a strong possibility that the Elfstedentocht will be run this year (the last was in 1997). Should that happen, is there consensus that it should appear on ITN? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- As with all other non-recurring events I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it. If it gets enough coverage and we have a decent enough article it'll go up as usual... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Should it go ahead next week, there will be plenty of coverage in the Dutch media. Hopefully there will be coverage elsewhere too. Article is already updated with info on the possibility of a 2012 race. No doubt it will get further updated if the race is run. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nominate it on WP:ITN/C if/when it takes place. Consensus will be determined then (since this isn't a WP:ITNR item, and rightly so). Modest Genius 13:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Should it go ahead next week, there will be plenty of coverage in the Dutch media. Hopefully there will be coverage elsewhere too. Article is already updated with info on the possibility of a 2012 race. No doubt it will get further updated if the race is run. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
And again... topic ban time?
See also: Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 36 § HiLo48 See also: Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 37 § Proposal: Consider accusations of "XYZ-centrism" personal attacks and strike such commentsAgain I bring the behaviour of HiLo48 up for discussion on these pages. This particular user has a history of divisive and uncivil comments at ITNC, and has been accused of a wide range of unsavoury antics from biting newbies to personal attacks based on nationality. Judging from his latest comments, he still fails to see how he is having a negative impact on ITNC and I submit that it is time that we topic ban him from ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I ought to add that he is by no means the only one guilty of such behaviour, but his has been the most persistent and repetitive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- The correct venue for proposing a topic ban is WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- The sad thing about having to go take HiLo 48 to ANI is that it makes us here at ITN look like a bunch of quarreling children. Nevertheless, judging from the latest comments by HiLo on his talk page and the Don Cornelius item which show no contrition whatsoever, I think we are going to have to do just that. I have never, in four years and over 50,000 edits, had to take anyone there. But HiLo's actions reflect quite badly on the ITN community. I support a group approach to this. If we are to take HiLo to ANI, let's make a strong case for a topic ban, try to get it done with as little drama as possible, and then move on. Jusdafax 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- The correct venue for proposing a topic ban is WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support I was bruised by the now banned user Deverance or whatever his name was. He overstepped the mark very quickly, with personal insults and snide remarks. HiLo48 is a very intelligent and useful editor. I like him and the work he's done on ITN and connected pages. But I really think that his recent behaviour has been too far over the line of acceptability. I don't want to hit him over the head - he is a very useful person around these pages - it's just recently he has gone too far. Deverence was rightly slapped down for his behaviour - let's hope HiLo48 does not go the same way doktorb words 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I humbly request that all three of you who don't like what I was doing there to have a look at the thread above titled "Is it time to review this area of the main page ?" I don't know if you've seen it before, but it's about making Misplaced Pages a better place, and you didn't participate. Please look there now. Much of what motivates me is encapsulated there. If you did see that thread earlier, and decided not to participate, please tell us all why? If you didn't see it, and only came here to get rid of me, again, why? I have been trying to improve this place. Many others haven't. That in itself is very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I honestly fail to see how you can say you "have been trying to improve this place" when so many of your comments have been so divisive and inflammatory. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- And there we have a classic example of a problematic and shallow post here. You picked out a minor part of my post, repeated a point you had already made, and successfully ignored most of what I had said. This is not high level conversation. It's you pushing a POV without real conversation. If I ignored what you said all the time, how would you feel? HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- HiLo48, I honestly feel we need fresh eyes on this situation. I want to get it straight what is and what isn't allowed here. In your very last comment you deflect Strange Passerby's observation, which I believe the record shows to be correct, that you are very often "divisive and inflammatory"... and then you call it "problematic and shallow." Just look at your current active comments on the project page. The rage you display towards a new contributor who came here to offer a suggestion, however awkwardly, is unacceptable. As for the thread above, which you cite as "high level", it is the same stuff you have been saying for years. You are beating a dead horse and driving away people. I turn away from you, nearly always, instead of get into your battles, but I draw the line when I see displays like the one in the "Don Cornelius" thread. Your angry bolded caps, overuse of exclamation points, and over-the-top hostility are patent abuse of collaborative editing. When confronted and warned, your defiance and inability to admit any wrongdoing are striking proof of your unwillingness to change your abusive style. In short, it's my view that you are an internet bully. Hopefully, uninvolved editors at ANI can put a stop to this abuse one way or another. Jusdafax 23:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)