Misplaced Pages

talk:In the news - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LaserLegs (talk | contribs) at 18:14, 15 April 2021 (→ITNR heads of state / government). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:14, 15 April 2021 by LaserLegs (talk | contribs) (→ITNR heads of state / government)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Please note:Please do not post error reports for Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITN/C. Thank you.

Please do not write disagreements about article content here. Instead, post them to WP:CEN. Thank you.
This talk page is for general discussions on In the news.
Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion.

Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Archiving icon
Archives

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


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Archiving icon
ITNR archives

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


ITNR heads of state / government

We're getting ready considering to post two powerless figure heads in Vietnam. Can we replace the heads of state / government bits with:

Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election.

We got half way there the last time this was brought up, one or two supports here and I'll just do it. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were doing this already. Maybe I was confused. As I pointed out on the Vietnam nomination, even if we go with the de jure power holder(the President) I don't think the PM should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
We currently do both, and in the case of Vietnam neither of them has any real power that lies with the general secretary. That's why I want to just cement it as the green shaded cell on the list and not worry about official titles. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
We're not getting ready to post anything. The bolded articles which have been nominated are so far below quality standards, and there are multiple, rather strenuous opposes based on that. This will not be on the main page barring some massive rewrites that anyone who monitors ITNC will not be expecting based on past performance in improving Misplaced Pages based on suggestions at ITNC. --Jayron32 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Re-worded. The rest of the post still stands. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Principle and content

I think we should separate this. Principle means that we judge whether the article is worthy enough for inclusion as a blurb in the ITN and content means we judge whether the condition of the article is sufficient enough for display in the main page. Some users have implemented this opinion method quite often and I think it would be a good idea to gain a consensus as to whether this method should be the norm when supporting/opposing non-recurring blurbs. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what we do. Is there something in particular that caused you to bring this up? 331dot (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, and we charge our posting admins with the responsibility of assessing those comments and also act as gatekeepers on the quality of the article before posting. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@331dot: Some users sometimes just put support/oppose over ITN blurb content. I think we should put that up in the header notice to encourage users to use the principle and content system. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a problem? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: No sir. I am really sorry. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Jeromi Mikhael Thanks for your comment, but the people who do that aren't likely to see such instructions or abide by them. As TRM notes, the process already includes admins weighing arguments and judging quality. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:!VOTE: It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is 'not the vote' that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. Ideally, the !voter leaves an explanation. A plain !vote without one is liable to be discounted/ignored by the admin. For blurbs, content is only an issue if the subject is considered blurb worthy, otherwise the page quality is moot.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Linking preceding "the"

@King of Hearts: I saw that you unlinked preceding the's from the basketball blurb with the rationale rm 'the' from link (when the general term is a recurring event, that's an exception to the usual rule about semantic linking of articles However, we have linked "the" in blurbs of recurring events like the America's Cup, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Finals and the World Series. While we are not 100% consistent in this style of linking, I've seen it used for recurring events more often than not. (Aside: For this current blurb, unlinking could arguably be WP:IAR to reduce the MOS:SEAOFBLUE.)—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any clear documentation, but my experience has been the reverse, e.g. NBA Finals, FIFA World Cup, World Series. Maybe we can get everyone's opinion on what style they prefer? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the argument for the exception is as follows: Normally, we want to avoid WP:ASTONISHing a reader by having a common noun link to something they didn't expect instead of a definition of that noun. Thus semantics take precedence over optics, since no one other than Misplaced Pages links articles (elsewhere, e.g. news websites, readers do not have the expectation that common nouns should link to definitions). However, a bolded event article is very much what a reader would expect to find, even if the displayed text doesn't contain the year. Since we are semantically kind of agnostic as to whether to include the article, optics (i.e. having a blue "the" looks weird) dictate that the article should not be linked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The examples you listed were from a few years ago. Perhaps consensus has changed? I had been under the assumption that we linked the or a whenever we were referring to a specific instance and not the generic one (recurring event or not) e.g. ] vs generic ]. I don't feel strongly one way or another, so long as we're consistent going forward.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
And sometimes, there is no (grammatical) article, thus no way to avoid this ambiguity: "Riots erupt in loyalist areas of Northern Ireland." I think one factor to consider as well is whether the (encyclopedic) article is in bold, because the bolded (encyclopedic) article in a blurb is always expected to contain the most specific coverage of the current event. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Defintitely we shouldn't force a preceding article just to have one. But if one is already there, the question is when to link it, if ever (obviously if it's part of the event name e.g. "The Boat Race").—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not much input on this thread, but the current ITN has three blurbs about recurring events with a preceding "the" piped in the link.—Bagumba (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be to make sure the reader knows without clicking that the link refers to the current incidence of those events, that they won't be going to a generic Grand National/Master's/BAFA article. It won't always be relevant, if that helps this discussion any. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Rowing

The boat race is WP:ITNR and the discussion affirming it's inclusion is here. If you want to change it, you can start that discussion. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
And if you want to include other items at ITNR, please feel free to nominate them for inclusion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

The boat race didn't make the front page of the newspapers in the UK, why on earth is it on the front page of wikipedia? 84.70.176.91 (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Because people improved the article so it was high enough quality to be recognized on the main page. --Jayron32 14:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
And tens of thousands people read about it there too. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Because it's on our recurring list of items we post when the events happen. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
BLOW THE KLAXONS!!!! Somewhere, the well-read and well-written 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship cries in a corner, which is not in the ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Jesus. Change the record. Your "issue" has nothing to do with the Boat Race and you know it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Make a worthwhile proposal for it to become ITNR then.... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Presumption of notability for blurb

Give the large discussion as to whether or not Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh deserved a blurb or not (and we are not going to resurrect that discussion here), it is probably worth setting down a set of circumstances whereby the individual concerned will normally be considered to be blurbworthy. If a consensus can be formed, then it might be worth adding something to WP:ITN/R. Obviously, for any article to be posted on the Main Page, it must meet the normal quality criteria that would apply to any other nomination.

Therefore I propose that the following groups of people are considered generally blurbworthy on their death:- Any reigning monarch (king, queen, emperor, sheik, crown prince etc). Any spouse of a reigning monarch. Any sitting head of state (president, prime minister etc). Any spouse of a head of state shall not be presumed to be inherently blurbworthy, but may be blurbworthy on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Please, no. Let's not make a mistake we make now, be the precedent to make that mistake again in the future for even less important figures like Marie, Princess of Liechtenstein. Fram (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The example you give would currently fail on quality. My proposal gives each and every country equal status. None of this "some countries are more notable than others" stuff. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose any rules beyond WP:CONSENSUS as determined at the time of posting. It's a small issue in the end, and doesn't need any extra rules. --Jayron32 13:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose "any spouse of a reigning monarch," support rest of proposal. I believe that Phillip was a rare circumstance where he was significantly more notable than most consorts, and that was agreed upon by other editors by consensus through ITN/C. However, I believe the rest of people under the remaining criteria are notable enough in the vast majority of cases to represent major news events worthy of being placed on the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like clarification on one aspect of the proposal, Mjroots: would this only apply to sitting heads of state or former heads of state as well? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Sitting heads of state, i.e, those who die "in office". ex-heads on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment The proposal as it is currently written is problematic. Many Prime Ministers (UK, Australia, New Zealand) are not the head of state of their country. The proposal it stands currently appears to be silent on heads of government (such as the Prime Ministers of those countries) yet requires that a sitting head of state would be blurbworthy. Thus the proposal is incomplete. Chrisclear (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Where there are two people in a single country that fall under the criteria, then each shall be presumed blurbworthy on their death. The examples you give - UK, Oz, NZ, all have the same monarch, Elizabeth II. Her death would be blurbworthy (I think that's a given in any case), as would that of Boris Johnson, Scott Morrison or Jacinda Ardern (current PM's) under this proposal. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's just admit that only the death of the consort of the monarch of the UK is de facto ITNR. We won't be doing this if it was the Dutch or Kuwaiti consort unless the act of death itself was noteworthy (read: assassination). We won't be even doing this to spouses of non-monarchies, even the long-serving ones in Africa, and more so with republics with real elections as first ladies don't rack up records like monarchial consorts do. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that first ladies of the United States are unusually notable compared to first ladies of other democracies, as many US first ladies have had a long-lasting impact (e.g. Eleanor Roosevelt, Jacqueline Kennedy, etc.) that simply isn't seen in other nations (I don't even know who Stephen Harper's wife is.) NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    The only U.S. first lady's death that is blurbable is Hillary Clinton. Everyone else goes to RD. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Clinton is an ex-first lady, so falls outside this proposal anyway. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    No incumbent first lady is blurbable upon death unless she dies with her head of state husband. Countries with real elections have their first ladies serve far too little time than a monarch's consorts, and those with fake elections are most likely not notable, just like most monarch's consorts. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
HRC then became a US senator, Secy of State, and major-party prez candidate. That's what would push her into a blurb, IMO. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah HRC is the only first lady that someone could argue successfully that had long-lasting impact barring somebody saying "BORING! AMERICANS DO THIS ALL THE TIME" crap. If Eleanor Roosevelt lived today she can perhaps do what HRC did, but maybe she was born at a wrong era. What I'm saying here is the only death of a spouse of a sitting head of state that will be automatically blurbed is the UK's. The faster the people here accept that fact, the better. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
About time you brought up the Boat Race, right? And you do know he was consort to the Queen of the Commonwealth not simply the UK? Jesus. Change the record. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the commission that wrote the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and then successfully promoted its adoption. She was the Hillary Clinton of the 1940s, and an important civil rights activist. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I would have supported a blurb for Eleanor Roosevelt, because she achieved a lot personally. I'm not sure HRC is quite there but let's see when she dies. Kingsif (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, vacancies of heads of state are de facto ITNR as per what happened to John Magufuli as his death was posted together with the succession of his vice president which is de jure ITNR. (Automatic head of state successions are a feature in most countries, but maybe not all.) Howard the Duck (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue is that position should not confer an automatic blurb (possibly except for a president of the United States). Blurb-level notability is a sliding scale, based on the position the person occupied and the length of time they were in said position. We might not ordinarily blurb the death of the king of Swaziland (at least, prior to the current movement to blurb the deaths of all heads of state), but Sobhuza II was the king for 82 years, which increases his notability. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment not sure why we need to explicitly state that people aren't generally notable enough for ITN blurb, and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If they're not on ITNR, then that's how it works anyway, so seems redundant to explicitly state it for a specific group (spouses of heads of states) when it's true for all people not in ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prince Philip's prominence was largely sui generis, there's no need to make a rule. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTBURO. The republican (small r) in me is also concerned that this treats consorts differently than spouses of sitting elected heads of state. -- Calidum 15:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above related to NOTBURO, but I would strongly suggest that when the next ITNC blurb suggestion for a spouse of a world leader (whether current or former) comes up, that we do not put excessive weight on being the spouse of a world leader - or at least treat that as an equivalent baseline - and instead focus more on whether while in that role - or even outside of that role - they contributed significantly to their nation or the world. Eg if we're using FLOTUSes here, certainly some have been far more influential while as FLOTUS or beyond, including both Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush (or heck, Lady Bird Johnson), that seem as equivalent important to Prince Phillips' activities beyond his position the UK Royalty - but of the other current surviving FLOTUSes, even considering Hillary Clinton, their contribution begs a question for meriting a blurb at the present time. Basically: "all" spouces of world leaders should be considered equivalent at that baseline and that itself is not sufficient to blurb, its what they have done beyond that that we should be considering to blurb. --Masem (t) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Presumption of suitability for a blurb should be based only on the notability of the deceased not the notability or office, etc of their spouse, regardless of who that spouse is/was and/or what office they hold/held. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be to argue that marrying a monarch inherently makes one blurb-notable. That's not true. Prince Philip was, but it's clear he is not the norm for royal spouses - even if it's just that at large people only really care about the British monarchy (of course, that fact is likely because of Philip's own efforts at maintaining relevance), but see below for arguments why he would honestly qualify, anyway. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose setting specific RD criteria, especially one as seemingly arbitrary as separating head of state from monarch. "Spouse of monarch" shouldn't be a set-in-stone category as Philip was notable in his own right. Then the head of state/govt is what we already have, so the proposal is unnecessary.  Nixinova   T   C   20:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Death criteria

Inspired by the recent posting of a blurb for Prince Phillip (which I think was correct), I think it is time we reconsider the wording at WP:ITNRD. In particular, I think the phrasing for item three, "major figures," under the subsection blurbs for recent deaths needs to be looked at.

The issue is that some users interpret The death of major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field, may merit a blurb to mean only "transformative world leaders in their field" should be considered blurb-worthy. This is wrong because it ignores the word "including." Read correctly, the phrase is meant to convey "transformative world leaders in their field" are just one kind of major figure.

That brings me to my second point: "transformative world leaders in their field" is an incredibly awkward phrase and I'm not sure most individuals would qualify if it was interpreted literally. Wayne Gretzky is arguably the greatest hockey player of all time, and thus a world leader in his field, but is he "transformative?" The same could be said about entertainers like Elton John or Bruce Springsteen; both are "world leaders in their field," but neither is necessarily "transformative." (Paul McCartney, on the other hand, is likely transformative, if you account for the Beatles' impact on popular music.)

My suggestion would be to drop the word "transformative" and replace it with something along the lines of "important," a term that is more readily understood and probably closer to what the actual practice at ITNC reflects.

Thanks for following along with my rant. -- Calidum 20:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

We're so far removed from actually following those guidelines at this point we should just nuke the whole section and replace it with "Deaths of individuals may be posted as a blurb when there is consensus to do so". Respectfully, I don't think your proposal makes any difference it'll just be s/transformative/important in the bickering at WP:ITNC --LaserLegs (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I’d agree with you on nuking the whole section. -- Calidum 14:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"Transformation" is very much field specific (as well as what "world leader" means), so I don't see that as a problem. EG take Gretzky. Did he transform the sport of hockey? In the manner that his playstyle influenced others, yes (just as with Elton and Bruce in terms of the music field). I think it is key to have to distinguish from just "world leaders in their field", as that itself then can fall prey to popularity (the issue with had with Carrie Fisher's death) when we're outside of a field where the people involve otherwise have a larger impact (eg politics and science). Yes, it is going to be highly debatable, and the problem does extend when we get "new" editors to ITN that aren't aware of how this has been discussed in the and some of the good and bad cases around it. But the language is still proper and points to necessary discussion before posting. --Masem (t) 21:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
If that is what you think we should be aiming for then I think "influential" would be a better word than "transformative", although it could do with some extra wording to make it clearer still. Thryduulf (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, ignoring his wife, Prince Philip was a transformative figure in at least two international fields. He co-founded and was active president for 20 years of the World Wildlife Fund, and he created the Duke of Edinburgh Award. He also co-founded the Royal Academy of Engineering, was a naval commander with active service medals, developed a new equestrian sport in later life, and of course led the institution side of the British and Commonwealth (is it forgotten he was not merely a one-country consort?) monarchy for 70 years. Should ITN have had the discussion 5 years ago, 3 years ago, last year... of whether to blurb him specifically when the time came? Maybe. But it shouldn't be a surprise he made the cut. Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
This is to say, I don't think one possibly vague word here matters. People are going to interpret that policy the same as they did before, and admins are going to interpret reasons given in !votes on their own merit. I don't think it will affect perception or practice. Kingsif (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Is the intent to clarify an existing practice or to transform people's !voting habits?—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I’d say it’s a little of both. Too often ITNC gets bogged down in a debate on whether a person “was transformative” as if that was the only criteria. -- Calidum 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree. A quick easy-win here is to delete "transformative". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest a minor change?

I tried to do it at WP:In the news/Candidates, but then I noticed it simply had this template, which I am unable to edit. My suggestion would be to, rather than just directing readers to WP:ERRORS, keep that link but in addition to that my suggestion would be to pipelink "Appropriate section" to WP:Errors#Errors with "In the News" as a more direct path, as such: "This is not to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page─ please go to the appropriate section of WP:Errors." If anyone WITH permission to edit this template would like to modify it in this way for me, they can copy-and-paste the following (without the "<nowiki>..." </nowiki> tags if you have gone to edit and seen them): ] at ]. Thanks! I hope this streamlines things for somebody, even if just a tiny bit... 23:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That would bypass the instructions, which some might need (if not also read).—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

RD vote guidance

This might be a little half-baked, but I often find voting on RD noms difficult to parse. Some don't seem to understand assumed significance. Others are arguing a blurb case and you don't know where they stand on quality. Then you have blurb wars with a dozen votes and the thing isn't even RD ready. I'd like to suggest different voting nomenclature for all RD noms that addresses both quality and blurbability by default. Something like: ( 1. RD when improved, 2. Ready for RD 3. Blurb when improved 4. Ready for blurb ) I think this would be easier to read and less disruptive. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Category: