Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 55

Is a train crash from twelve days ago still "news"?
Does anyone here think that ITN is voting down so much news, based on subjective levels of "importance," that we've missed the boat? First, it's difficult to argue that Umberto Eco had a smaller effect on the world than a train crash in Germany, tragic as it is. Second, that train crash happened on February 9. That's no longer news; that's history.

We need to lower our standard of "importance" to keep fresh topics on the main page. Otherwise, what's the point? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a news ticker or news source, but a way to feature articles about topical subjects. It isn't meant to have constant turnover.  If you want more turnover in stories, please nominate more stories. We shouldn't lower our standards just for the sake of fresh postings; we would then just be a news ticker. What is important varies from person to person; otherwise, there would be no need for discussion and obtaining consensus.  331dot (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about quality—I'm talking about subjective standards of importance from the editors voting support and oppose on ITN/C. We can still post good articles while worrying less about how much of a global impact the news had. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because we're in a lull, it doesn't mean we temporarily reduce our standards. It would set a "lower bar" precedence.  This kind of complaint happens from time to time, c'est la vie.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As an admin, you could always remove stale items and substitute an extra OTD item to balance. There's almost always a choice of additional items in that section. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not without consensus. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd consider removing items that are over, say, 10 days old and without significant ongoing developments would fall within admin discretion. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You could possibly convince me that older items could be removed, but nothing should be added without consensus; otherwise, there is little point to ITNC and ITN would just be a ticker that wasn't featuring articles, but filling space on the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree nothing should be added to ITN without consensus. I was suggesting adding items to On this Day, to balance, which is something that I have often done in the past when the mainpage columns fail to balance. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize; I initially read that as you wanted to take OTD items and transfer them to ITN. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. That interpretation had never occurred to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's possible that we could remove "old" news and bump up OTD to cater for it, we often remove/restore oldest news items to take the fluctuations of the DYK section into account. However, just deciding that a news story is arbitrarily too old may cause its own problems. For instance, the train crash story had a reasonably recent update to reveal the cause of the cause of the crash which would be of interest. Superbowl 50 on the other hand was interesting for a day or so, and then it was meh. Lulls in new news occur from time to time. Don't stress it. Alternatively nominate more news stories at ITNC to generate some interest in things outside the normal scope of that part of the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stale items, let's say over 7 days old, should all be eligible for a "remove" process, exactly like the "post" process, where all editors can give sound reasons and consensus can be gained. Proposing a removed should be possible regardless of whether or not there is a lull or a glut of other news story candidates. Just do it immediately under the post thread, even if it's hatted (in most cases it probably will be). It's very simple. 217.38.191.254 (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's true, we could instigate such a process, "remove as stale". It could result in the ITN section folding up to nothing, but yes, it's simple.  But a new section should be created since, like this example, the item's thread has already been archived.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah fine, whateva. If it's been archived, just open a new thread. It would save a whole bunch of folks gettin kinda grouchy and hanging on for a passing admin to do them a favor? 217.38.191.254 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I have no personal objection to this approach, but it's kind of the opposite to what the OP was suggesting, that instead of removing old news, we replace it with less "notable" new news. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd oppose any changes as being proposed above regarding time limits on items, or on establishing a procedure to remove older items by vote. This is clearly a solution in search of a problem.  The main purpose of ITN (as with every section of the main page) is to highlight articles of sufficient quality.  At ITN, that happens to be for recently occurring events, but as there is no impending harm to Wikipedia if the quality of these articles has not degraded, then there is absolutely no compelling reason to force items off merely for being arbitrarily too old.  Sometimes the oldest item will be 2-3 days old, sometimes it will be 12-13 days old, and that's the way it goes.  I am unconcerned about that.  No need to create meddlesome changes just for change sake.  -- Jayron 32 18:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Bud Collins
I'm surprised he isn't nominated yet. All the obits are talking about his impact on tennis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is stopping you... -- Jayron 32 05:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No point posting it if the America-haters are going to shoot it down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Violins please. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Respect for editors please. Kevin McE (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perspective, humour, try them. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . 217.38.110.122 (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

ITN vs. WP:NOTCENSORED
ITN articles should meet some level of quality. Most editors agree with that. However fairly often a nomination will get opposed because of article quality. This leads to an apparent contradiction, because preventing a certain item from being listed on the main page because it is not "good enough" is effectively censoring the main page, which in turn violates WP:NOTCENSORED. This point has been bothering me for a while, but what really pushed things overboard was when edited the 2016 Daytona 500 article thus. Yes the sentence removed lacks a citation and yes, unreferenced Wikipedia content may be challenged and removed at any point. However Coffee wasn't challenging the content. He / she is removing it to "prepare for ITN". That is when I got really troubled. I realized that everything I see on the main page has actually been censored. Every time I browse the main page looking for an interesting article to read, I don't actually land on a page reflective of what Wikipedia is really like. Instead what I'm seeing is not only something that a committee of people have agreed is sufficiently important + of sufficiently good article quality to be featured, but also something that has been sanitized to remove all contentious material from, presumably so as not to pollute my young mind with naive ideas about how ugly Wikipedia can be. Wow! I felt sufficiently offended to stop reading ITN for several days, and am still not particularly keen to participate.

I wonder what other editors feel about this. I guess many would think of WP:NOTNEWS, which like WP:NOTCENSORED is also a consensus Wikipedia policy. However NOTNEWS is a policy dealing with Wikipedia articles, not with ITN. If a nomination is worth opposing because it fails NOTNEWS, then it is also worth deleting from the encyclopedia entirely, because it fails NOTNEWS. Yet in my time reading ITN, while plenty of people have opposed nominations per NOTNEWS, nobody (other than me, once, for Puisseguin road crash) that I'm aware of has actually gone on to nominate the article at AfD. This is another apparent contradiction that I do not understand.

Comments welcome. This is not an attempt to change ITN policy. I'm just thinking in terms of the apparent contradiction. Banedon (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS is "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". While it's primary application is towards article evaluation, it applies to all aspects, which is in part where WP:RECENTISM also comes in. For ITN, we have decided that ITN is not a news ticker, so not every big story that might get international coverage will be at ITN.
 * I will strongly urge that is cannot be considered censoring. We are absolutely not preventing any coverage of a topic, but making sure that encyclopedic quality is only present. We can and will remove material that cannot meet WP:V, but once it can meet that, it will be readded, so that's absolutely not censoring. It's a term too many people want to jump on, but there's a very specific definition that censoring means, and WP does not engage in it. We just require information to be verifyable, which actually does prevent some information from being included but that's not censoring the work; once the verifcation can be made, we allow its addition (give or take a few cases.) --M ASEM (t) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unverifiable content on Wikipedia should be removed, whether or not it is being considered for ITN. Having an open nomination does bring more attention to an article, which could result in unverifiable content being removed faster. That is a plus for the encyclopedia. If you believe that a verifiable point is not in an article, you are welcome to fix it. Mamyles (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is obviously a core policy on Wikipedia, and it should be. But if we accept verifiability at face value, then tags become pointless: everything that can be tagged with  ought to just outright be deleted. I think commonsense behavior here is that few people delete things just because they're tagged with ; instead editors delete them when they think the material is inappropriate / nonsense / libelous etc. Such edit summaries would say something like "I think so and so is incorrect because of X and Y, removing". When Coffee edited the 2016 Daytona 500 article however, (s)he wasn't challenging the deleted material. They were explicitly removed to prepare the article for ITN. WP:V was not mentioned at all. I still don't see how this can be interpreted as not censoring.
 * As for censorship: it's not just edits like Coffee's that feels like censorship. Every time a nomination is opposed because of article quality, we are also effectively censoring the main page. We are not preventing coverage of the topic, which is still somewhere on the encyclopedia, but we are preventing coverage of it on the main page. This doesn't apply to when a nomination is opposed because of notability, because when that happens we don't feature the material because we believe the typical reader is not interested. When opposition is based on article quality however, the basic attitude is "I think this article is not good enough to show the typical main page reader", which is very reminiscent of typical censorship attitudes (just replace "not good enough" with "too obscene / too seditious / too sensitive" etc). All in all, it still makes me uncomfortable. Banedon (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely not censoring. The consensus to not post a topic on the front page is editorial discretion, not censorship. --M ASEM (t) 06:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair way of thinking about it. What about the others (NOTNEWS vs. nominating for deletion, and hiding material instead of deleting it?) Banedon (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How to handle cn tagged material is always an editorial discretion depending on the nature of the material. Controversial or outrageous claims may usually be deleted immediately given the burden of proof is higher for more contentious statements, ESPECIALLY with regards to negative information about living persons.  However, it is not ever incorrect to temporarily hide or move to the talk page some uncited statement for others to cite later.  There's a general consensus that giving people some time to do so is generally a good idea, especially for non-contentious statements, but hiding it with comment tags or moving to the talk page is a good way of simultaneously preserving (per WP:PRESERVE) someone elses work, but still abiding by WP:V.  -- Jayron 32 14:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The example given is absolutely not censorship. From WP:V, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.  There was nothing verifying the material that Coffee commented out, so those actions were perfectly in-line with policy.  If you believe that WP:V is in direct conflict with WP:NOTCENSORED, this talk page is not the venue to resolve that opinion. As for what I'm seeing is not only something that a committee of people have agreed is sufficiently important + of sufficiently good article quality to be featured, but also something that has been sanitized to remove all contentious material from..., it sounds like ITN is doing an excellent job of observing WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:V.  If you don't like that, perhaps ITN or Wikipedia in general is not for you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @: (Sorry this is a bit late, but I only saw it just now, and you have invited comments). As somebody who tends to be ignostic about most things, I would say that it all depends on the meaning, in the specific context of Wikipedia, of the word "censored" and the sentence "Wikipedia is not censored". I would say the latter should be understood as meaning "Wikipedia should not be unreasonably censored" and that in general we are using "censored" to mean "unreasonably censored". Ideally we should change those rules to say this explicitly, but in practice in the real world it's probably just more hassle than it's worth to try to do so, so we're probably stuck with these unsatisfactorily implicit and non-obvious definitions, though somebody might arguably usefully try to mention this in the text describing "Wikipedia is not censored", and/or in some Wikipedia Essay written for that purpose. The point is that any suppression of expression is censorship by many and perhaps most definitions, so using those definitions we could not get rid of vandalism, nonsense, etc, and Wikipedia would simply collapse. So inevitably we have to have a lot of what I would call 'reasonable censorship' (even though others will say it isn't censorship at all).


 * In practice we inevitably also have quite a lot of unreasonable censorship too, but even then three points need to be made: First this is true of all or almost all publications in this world, not just Wikipedia. Second even censored articles are often usefully informative, especially if you are aware of the kinds of censorship likely to be occurring in that article. Third, ITN is relatively free of unreasonable censorship (not absolutely free as such absolutes are impossible in our imperfect world), because it is relatively (again not absolutely) free of control by vested interests (whether economic, political, religious, ideological, national, sporting, or artistic, etc, whether paid mercenaries or honest volunteer believers in a cause, and whether directed from outside or self-directed believers), because it is much more efficient for vested interests to concentrate on defending articles that are especially important to them, rather than a general area like ITN. (Incidentally, I should perhaps also add that Wikipedia would probably be a lot more peaceful and less bullying, but probably also a lot smaller and less useful without the contributions of these vested interests, so it seems too simplistic to see them as just a bad thing).


 * And obviously there is inevitably also a vast grey area where it's unclear whether the censorship is reasonable or not.


 * Finally, as regards your example, in a sense you are right that it is censorship (and your concern about that is both understandable and reasonable), but it is not clear that it is unreasonable censorship - it was done in conformity with seemingly reasonable rules concerning unverified material, and in pursuit of a seemingly reasonable objective (to get the article onto ITN). So it seems to me that at worst it can only have been slightly unreasonable, and in my view (admittedly a thoroughly fallible view) it was probably not unreasonable at all.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like ultimately what was troubling me is the arbitrariness of it all. When Coffee removed the sentences tagged from the 2016 Daytona 500 page, perhaps he or she was being diligent, and perhaps the material did need to be verified as well. Yet other times this doesn't happen, e.g. in the topmost featured article on ITN right now, Samoan general election, 2016, there is a blatant  tag in the Campaign section, while in the Electoral System section one can also argue that sentences like "Universal suffrage was introduced in 1990, permitting Samoan citizens over the age of 21 to vote in person" should be cited (it's not in the reference given at the end). The claim is probably true, it's just not cited. Nobody has tagged it with  however (and I'm not about to do it either), which may have influenced some people to say the article is sufficient for posting, and may have led the posting admin to not do a Coffee and remove the sentence. I'm sure similar things can be found with other articles as well. Which sentences end up getting tagged is effectively random, yet those that do risk getting censored.
 * I would personally prefer everyone not bother with tags and article quality in general (unless article quality is truly abysmal), and leave  tags to be resolved by editors who are legitimately interested in the article and willing to justify their edits on the article's talk page. It looks like most people are happy with the status quo though, so leave it as that. Banedon (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Editorialising in nomination closure notes
Can there ever be justification for personal opinion and editorialising in the notes to explain the fate of a proposal in In the news/Candidates?

The Rambling Man closed his own RD proposal (not a problem of itself) for Sarah Tait with the commentary "Clearly rowing World Champions/Olympic silver medallists are numbered in the tens of thousands and their deaths, including Tait's, are nothing to write home about since there are so many of them and their sport is so non-notable. Withdrawing the nomination as it's obvious that there's no consensus to post." I replaced it, twice, with the incontrovertible, non-sarcastic and factual "Withdrawn by nominator". The previous version was reinstated twice by TRM with no explanation (although this was requested), accompanied by a post to my talk page that shows little respect for WP:CIVIL.

I would propose that these summaries of the fate of a nomination should be written in a neutral tone, and present no more than the decision reached and the reason for it. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No need. Emotions can run high on ITN. It's part of the process. Let's just let this be.--WaltCip (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't blame TRM for feeling the way he did, after the RD criteria was seemingly ignored by those who shot down the nomination. The comment clearly demonstrated understandable annoyance but I don't think it was uncivil.  I also don't think it warrants writing down more instructions; there are forums to make use of if one feels a comment is too inappropriate, and that doesn't require making more instructions to follow. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in Closing discussions that suggests that extended commentary is not allowed. Stephen 23:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. That page states, "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions": expressing an opinion makes the editor closing involved.
 * Also states that "These customs are grounded in the core principles of Wikipedia etiquette such as assuming good faith, creating consensus, and maintaining civility." The closing notes in question disrespect the principle consensus, and sarcasm is contrary to the notion of civility. Kevin McE (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind. You asked about editorialising in closure notes.  You stated above that the closure of his nomination was "not a problem of itself".  I pointed out that "there are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion."  Now you're trying to bait and switch this in to a discussion on etiquette.  Stephen 22:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kevin McE. I was troubled by the closing summary myself, as I have been with many of TRM's borderline uncivil behavior on ITN. It's my opinion that he doesn't outright break rules, but he's also constantly skirting the edges between what is unacceptable and what is barely acceptable. Here is another example.
 * It's understandable that TRM may feel the way he did, but that's not an excuse for losing control and violating WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I was actually hopeful when he decided to retire some time ago, and I felt ITN was a much friendlier and productive environment while he was away. Too bad that didn't last. I've simply been ignoring his rude behavior as much as possible, but that is evidently not making him any more civil. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that he seemingly references my own comments in his frustration, I don't see any reason to get upset about it. It is, after all, plainly just frustration, something everyone alive can easily empathize with. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I share the same feeling as other above: I see it as TRM venting frustration, which we all need to do from time to time. No reason to make this into a big deal, especially since he's not outright attacking anyone. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, yet when you closed your own nomination you were much more polite. You could've been frustrated and closed the nomination with some kind of sarcastic remarks about US-centricness, but you didn't. Mastery over emotions is an important skill. And while TRM wasn't outright attacking anyone, he also reverted Kevin McE's attempts to remove the vented frustration and added less than civil warning to Kevin McE's talk page. What does that say about TRM "venting frustration"? Banedon (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not bothering to notify me of this, very collegial. It's done, it's been removed, it won't happen again, but only because this behind-the-scene bitch festival is so distasteful and a pure waste of resources. Time to get back to trying to improve Wikipedia for our readers, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Kevin attempted to ping you by linking to your username, but I don't think it was done in the correct format. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He had every right to discuss this with TRM on his own talkpage. This didn't happen. That to me is more uncivil than the so-called uncivil closing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are happy to discuss user conduct with TRM on his talk page? I applaud you for your persistence and stubbornness then - if I were Kevin McE, I'd have given it up as futile after reading what he left on my talk page. Banedon (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Move on Banedon. If you spent more time actively improving pages and less time commentating, Wikipedia would be a better place for both reasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oooo, can't you just taste the irony. 217.38.182.67 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that has become common place with TRM. The snarkiness, the sarcasm, the rude and unnecessary remarks. Wasn't HiLo48 topic banned for this sort of thing? I mean, even consider the comment above "If you spent more time actively improving pages and less time commentating, Wikipedia would be a better place for both reasons." The connotation is obvious: Banedon is unwelcome, and the users contributions do not make Wikipedia a better place. TRM will deny it of course, and erect a wall of text in the process, but it doesn't change how the target of these remarks feels about them. At the same time, you can question what value a hateful statement like "behind-the-scene bitch festival is so distasteful and a pure waste of resources" but he'll just ignore you. (It does beg the question though, how can someone who tosses around comments like "improve Wikipedia for our readers" possibly think that "waste of resources" comment improves anything for anyone?). The thing is, you can't argue that TRM doesn't make worthwhile contributions. They're substantial. The issue is that the project has no mechanism for what to do with someone who espouses such on going low level hostility towards a large number of participants, especially when the project is facing a general decline in participation. The problem isn't limited to TRM either, there are a number of these sorts of "stewards of Wikipedia" ... it's also not my problem either, I wish you all the best of luck with this. You can stick your heads in the sand and ignore it, or you can do something about it, honestly, I don't care. --107.77.232.41 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again, thanks for your input, it's always valuable. Now then, for walls of text, see your own contributions and those of Banedon himself.  I rarely resort to such obfuscation.  The "behind-the-scenes" statements are not hurtful at all, they are designed to remind everyone here that without creating and improving articles, the talk pages, the chat room venues, the ref desks etc, simply wouldn't exist.  Some people find it very easy to sit in the peanut gallery and do nothing to improve Wikipedia for the reader.  People who generate and improve content get the respect the deserve, those who just commentate are ultimately doing nothing for the project and there are plenty of other venues for them to exercise they chatroom behaviour.  As for self-designated stewards, we have many of those, some of whom even abuse their tools to do act in such a capacity.  Outrageous, I'm sure you'll agree.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And some people just edit articles without making snide and belittling comments all the time. 217.38.182.67 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

IP edits
There's been a rash of nonconstructive IP edits on the ITN/C page lately, mostly in the form of personal attacks, mocking other !votes, or just outright denigration of the process, whether it's this, this, this, this, or this... all within the span of week. I've been here for a while and I don't find this to be typical of ITN; I'm wondering if semi-protection might be necessary?--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not particularly disruptive, just annoying, so I don't think semi-protection is necessary. More than enough people keep an eye on this page to handle a few passing trolls. If it picks up in intensity, then it might be worth looking into semi-protection ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There've been plenty of constructive edits by IPs as well e.g. , so I'm against semi-protection. Banedon (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I agree there seems to be a rash of such edits recently, I also oppose protection. It is better to deal with each IP if needed. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Instructions on Ongoing ticker
After failed attempt to feature the aftermath of the Brussels bombing for a time being, we should revisit the instructions on Ongoing events. "Admin discretion" has been encouraged, but it also has extended to aftermaths and investigations on tragic events in Europe. If we do that to such tragedies in Europe, why not Africa or Asia? Otherwise, what shall we do about admins' discretions on Ongoing events? --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin discretion, and its current implementation, is just fine. Just because some of the time it isn't agreed with by the community, it matters not a jot.  That's why we have a community, and why we can assess consensus.  There's nothing to see here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But none of this would have happened if the aftermath wasn't posted without discussion and then pulled based on consensus in the first place. That way, we could have prevent a couple logs of the ITN template. --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make a jot of difference, why are you worried about the "logs of the ITN template"? Are we running out of disk space?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per TRM, admin discretion works fine unless consensus overturns it, which it does sometimes. No big deal, if consensus is to overturn the addition of an item to "Ongoing", and we then remove the item, that's called "the system working exactly as designed".  -- Jayron 32 16:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If an event appears as Ongoing for less than 24 hours until removed per consensus, how is the system "working"? --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's following the guidelines, i.e. an admin moves it from the blurbs to Ongoing. Then the community decide they don't want it at Ongoing so it's removed.  How is this actually a real problem?  Or are we all out of genuine issues to solve, so we should start creating problems where they don't exist?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should have second thoughts on posting aftermaths of any tragedies as "Ongoing" before actually posting them. If discretion isn't the problem, then maybe it's casting an aftermath as "Ongoing". Normally, consensus would be against posting any such; one exception would be an aftermath of Paris attacks in 2015. --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * George, this is yet another example of you trying to create strict rules of conduct where that is neither wanted nor necessary. The rules of conduct  for Wikipedia are simple.  We have discussions.  If consensus goes one way or the other, we follow that consensus.  We also don't demand pre-votes for everything.  Wikipedia has an expectation of bold action.  There's not a problem here, as we had a bold action (moving an item to ongoing the admin, in good faith, thought met the standards) and then we had a discussion, where consensus was to take it down.  Everything worked EXACTLY as it was planned.  There's no need to write a rule now so we can short circuit consensus building discussion or boldness.  Excessively detailed rules discourage both of those things.  We, here at Wikipedia, want to encourage both.  -- Jayron 32 18:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that while admin discretion is certainly enabled, the choice here of moving a blurb that had fallen off the ITN list due to a rush of stories as to feature it more is a strange approach. I agree that the Brussells bombing story was off the list far too fast, but the solution would have been to WP:IAR and push a lesser news story like an election or a sporting result could have been pushed off first as to feature a major world-affecting story, giving it a bit more time. Mind you, I would only do that for stories that involve tragic loss of life, which would include terrorist acts, transportation (or other manmade) disasters, and natural disasters, and which should have a run of 2-3 days due to their significance. I just don't think that using Ongoing as "overflow" for a fast news period is an option we want to promote. --M ASEM (t) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be better to summarise your position in future. What we're all saying is that we should trust admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we assume that an admin is making a BOLD action at ITN in good faith? Sure, that's the essence of BOLD and IAR.
 * But now that this action (promoting a story that slipped off the ticker into Ongoing) has happened, its fair to discuss if this really is a valid action to be encouraged in the future under similar situations, or if there's a different approach to take. --M ASEM (t) 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, the point is that admins are trusted to make such decisions. Should the community disagree, they can, and they have done.  Nobody died, no big deal.  Move on and perhaps work on improving articles?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My point has nothing to do with admin actions, it's about the situation that happened - a rather important blurb that fell off the ticker in a short time due to an active news cycle - and how to deal with that in the future. Putting it to Ongoing doesn't seem appropriate based on community response. I am suggesting that instead the better action is to retain an important blurb and letting less important ones slip off instead, should this situation develop. Figuring the consensus for that now will prevent further problems at ITN in the future. --M ASEM (t) 22:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm relieved that I'm not the only one having issues with this. If the discussion among administrators go out of hand, shall I move this discussion to admins noticeboard? George Ho (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No George. Two administrators having a frank discussion to come to a mutual understanding is not a reason to take the discussion to an admins noticeboard. Stephen
 * There is nothing wrong with the current system. If someone wants to start a new discussion relating to voting to keep "important" stories still on the ticker, then that's a completely different topic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Our Wikipedia policy and culture is very clear about avoiding unnecessarily bogging down process with rules. I applaud the admins for their effective and well-thought use of discretion.--WaltCip (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ITN timer
Do we need this anymore? It seems like the ITN timer would be necessary if we had a deadline to meet for posting news items, but sometimes we'll post two or three items at a time in spurts on some days, and nothing at all for a few days if it's a slow news cycle. Since consensus is that we are not beholden to any sort of standard to post items to the template within a specific span of time, we really should just get rid of the timer.--WaltCip (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't used it for years. I propose we remove the timer. It's really past its usefulness.  -- Jayron 32 19:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't use it either. We post stories on their individual merits and not because the existing blurbs are getting mouldy.  I for one wouldn't miss resetting the timer when a new item is posted. Stephen 22:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. It was my idea to remove the sinister colours when we got to 12 hours, 24 hours etc for a new story, as if we needed additional pressure just to post anything.  It's probably unnecessary, ITN isn't DYK where it's all on a deadline.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If no one speaks up to object, I'm going to untransclude the timer and remove it from the instructions in a couple of days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started the decommissioning after User:MSGJ removed it from the instructions. Stephen 23:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(Closed, RD expended to list 4 items) Expanding RDs - should we list four?
Hello all. Right now we have three Ongoing events and they are somewhat dwarfing the RDs we have. At least one admin has gone ahead with four RDs when the time was right (i.e. keeping someone on the main page longer because they'd only just got there). I'd like to propose that if we can (and 2016 seems to be providing ample subjects), we move to four subjects at RD.

So, proposal: Expand the RD section of ITN to include up to four individuals. Yay or nay. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Support

 * Support as and when necessary. It's a damned shame when people work long and hard on articles for a few days only to see them posted for a matter of hours.  I know this isn't a solution to that but it makes it much less likely to happen, and we have the real estate to manage four names.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It is a shame when a person gets bumped quickly because other accomplished people happen to die a day later. I don't see any reason we can't keep RDs on longer, by having more on at a time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – We have the space for it so I don't see this as a major issue. This will help, to a degree, with allowing articles to have more time on the MP when there is a flurry of notable deaths. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Nothing wrong with fourth addition as long as there's room for it. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the above comments. Neljack (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD's tend to fall off within 48-72 hours of being listed, which I find too quick. A discussion for another day may be warranted with regards to adjusting the time-span of RD listings, or perhaps even making them independent of the main ticker. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 07:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I've noticed the same thing TRM mentions. This especially happens if a person is supported on notability but their article is awful - editors may put in hard work fixing it up, and this may take a few days.  By the time it goes up, it's third in line and stays up for less than a day before getting knocked off by a more recent death.  I might even go so far as to say that this also has a distorting effect; because Wikipedia suffers from an "over-emphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events", articles on persons well outside these spheres may take much more time and effort to prepare for the front page than, say, an Oscar winning American actor or a multi-platinum British musician, ergo are more likely to fall victim to this (or even miss the window entirely if there are several deaths in a couple of days). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, not only do "people work long and hard on articles for a few days only to see them posted for a matter of hours", but editors working on those articles may even miss the posting entirely, e.g. Keith Emerson who was there for 12 hours?. And I don't see any "slippery slope" here - four means four. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Emerson aside, it's hard for people who don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia to understand why some folks stay on RD for a very long time (either because no one else important died or because if someone did, there wasn't a consensus to post their name for whatever reason) and others for a shorter time. This also happens when people get the front posted slot and then three more people rather than one have to die to bump them. It's not intended as a judgment on the importance of the individual, but people who don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia take it that way. I'd really like to see a scheme where the article has to gain consensus and get posted within 7 days of the death (providing time to improve the article if  needed), but once it's up there it stays for a set amount of time, let's say 48 hours, and then is removed whether or not other important people have died. But I'd settle for just allowing more names than three in the RDs for now. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support when necessary (eg, if we need to balance with Ongoing). It's understood that this is not saying RDs should always max out at 4, normally they should still max out at 3, but when there's 3 Ongoings, a 4th RD is reasonable until such a time the Ongoings drop back to 2 or 1. --M ASEM (t) 20:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Ok, TRM. I'll bite. Right now there are 3 RDs likely to be posted today, and one that was already posted yesterday. It's probably not the best idea to push yesterday's RD off when it hasn't been on the ticker for very long, so in situations like this, I can certainly see having a max of 4 RDs.--WaltCip (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose The typical pattern for a RD is that you get a big spike in traffic when the death is announced but this tails off quickly within a couple of days. For example, in the recent cases of Garry Shandling and Johan Cruyff, the initial spike was about 0.5 million views but within a couple of days this has tailed off to about 20% of that.  So, having a fairly brisk scroll is consistent with the general pattern.  If the death is a big deal event with complications or a grand funeral, then it will tend to get a blurb and so it will be around longer. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Four is less than ideal; on most screen sizes this would cause the fourth name to roll over to the next line. Three is enough, and the fact that at random times of the year, occasionally we get a flood of postings, is not a reason to push the listing to a fourth posting.  Most of the time, we have three and they stay up for a week or more.  Designing for the small, rare occurrence (having a short flurry of deaths in a short time) when it creates a problem for the majority of the time (having MORE stale entries), is a bad idea.  -- Jayron 32 12:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Conversations

 * If we add four, the next question is going to be what if there are 5 people deserving of an RD. Then 6. Then 7. I'm aware this is a slippery slope argument but I think we need to decide whether we are going to keep it at four and only four, and if the RD criteria needs to change as a result.--WaltCip (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, how much space is there to the right of Ken Howard right now on your browser? It looks to me like it could easily accommodate at least one, perhaps two more names without going onto a second line?  Perhaps that's the criterion, that we only use one line's worth....  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm currently using a laptop screen (1366 pixels wide) and there's a bit of white space to the right but not enough for a long name. We should avoid adding lines to RD/Ongoing because this will tend to cause a sea of blue / wall of text effect, in which the readers will have trouble picking out individual items. Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a dual-monitor setup. On my 1080p widescreen there's enough room for even 5 or 6 names. But on my standard 4:3 monitor, there's only enough to fit a really short name like "Prince". The problem with having "one line's worth" is that you would need to set a standard based on common user monitor resolutions or browsers, and that is nearly impossible, especially with many people turning to mobile devices for browsing.--WaltCip (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree, it would be impossible. I'm just interesting on how much that available space varies.  For me, as I said, I could easily fit another name and maybe a fifth in that gap.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how RD works. Items there don't go "stale", they are removed after seven days of the subject's death.  It is extremely rare for an RD to stay posted for seven days, that would only happen for items posted on the day they were nominated, which isn't common by any means.  Nobody ever said we needed to have four items there all the time, just increasing the maximum to four, so I'm not sure where you get this "MORE stale entries" idea from.   The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure how having four 7-day old items (for when we end up having that, which is most of the time, since it is rare that we have more than three RD items within the last 7 days) most of the time is beneficial over having 3, given that the situation where THAT happens is more common than having four items within the 7 day period. -- Jayron 32 16:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to qualify your assertions? As far as I've seen (having updated RD a lot lately), I'm often pushing items off RD, in particular that noted by  which had an absolute overhaul, only to be featured for a few hours.   By the way, just to compare apples with apples, we don't arbitrarily remove items from ITN for being seven days old... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you just verified my suppositions. You just said "lately."  We don't want to base our decisions on what happens to be going on right now.  We want to base our decisions based on what usually happens.  If the definition of "usual" changes, then we can change our expectations.  A few days of unusual activity does not change the meaning of "usual", even if we are in the midst of that unusual activity.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, lately like "climate change has made the weather odd lately", i.e. it's been odd now for a few years and it's going to stay odd, and maybe get odder. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Depends on how short-term your definition of "lately" is. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "But what I really feel my eyes won't let me hide, ‘Cause they always start to cry." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. I've already explained that this is a trend that is ongoing (hahahaha).  In any case, this isn't getting anywhere, let's just see where the consensus gets us (hahahaha).  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily increase RDs to five?
Right now we have one RD marked as ready, but there are four on the Main Page. Shall we enforce the "ignore all rules" policy to go ahead and increase to five? It's not permanent or anything; I don't like holdups. --George Ho (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Stephen 05:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we'll stick with four for now, and that's the exception really, not the rule. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Womens 2020
It seems West Indies lost, am i correct or is this vand. 74.105.133.44 (talk)
 * They won. It says so in the ITN section and in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The table says "Australia" won, can you fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.133.44 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC) ‎
 * No, it says Australia went into the tournament as winners of the previous tournament. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ITN notice template
Please see: Template talk:ITN notice. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you try pressing one of the "give credit" links on WP:ITN/C now you may be mildly impressed. I've got too much time on my hands! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's good work, nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio in article featured in recent deaths
Hi. Just to say that I've discovered and tagged a copyright violation in the Joe Medicine Crow article, which is currently linked to from the recent deaths section. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for the time being, thanks. It would be quicker if you could post this kind of note at WP:ERRORS in future, we can't have such quality issues on the main page for so long...  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks, . Cordless Larry (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Deaths of non-Western people
I have been informally monitoring the recent deaths section of "In the news" since I saw Paul Daniels listed there. It surprised me that he was included, as I presume his fame was limited outside of the UK (perhaps I'm wrong about this), and I've been playing closer attention to the names that appear since then. It strikes me that the vast majority of the people listed are Western (or at least lived in the West, as in the case of Zaha Hadid). Is this an area of Wikipedia where we could try to take steps to counter systemic bias? I'd be interested to hear other editors' thoughts on whether non-Western figures don't get included because they're less likely to be nominated than Westerners, or because English-language news of their deaths is rare and hence we don't tend to find out about them so quickly (or whether there are other explanations). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally I would say you have hit the nails on the head, i.e. it's due to a lack of nominations, due to a lack of "in the news" coverage in the English language, due to general malaise and systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree, it's primarily the lack of reporting in the English speaking media and the subsequent lack of knowledge in English speaking users of this Wikipedia. Not at all sure 'bias' comes into it. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue that this is a result not of ITN itself but just the general systematic bias that en.wiki has to non-English-speaking places and people that we have all policies in place to counter (eg we don't require English sources, etc.) but simply a lack of volunteers that want to work in these areas. As long as at ITN we do not discriminate on nominations simply because they are from the non-Western world, we are otherwise showing the result of the overall systematic bias that WP has. --M ASEM (t) 14:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything said above is true, but there's also the fact that "notability" and "systematic bias" have a complicated relationship. A part of what helps decide whether something shows up on ITN is whether we think ITN readers will, in general, care about something. That's not necessarily a bias to overcome; it's similar to the systematic bias against non-famous people in the English-speaking world.  So it's a balancing act that we need to keep in mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I would argue that I have not seen a case where an RD of a non-Western people was rejected on the grounds because "they aren't important in the Western world" (though I have seen this as a ill-advised reason to oppose which is generally rejected by the admin processing the nom) There are importance issues but this usually has been the case of, say, a second-tier government position, etc, that we'd equally apply to Western RD candidates. It is the lack of those nominations or the quality of those RD articles that's the reason for the lack of non-Western RDs, not because ITN has a bias against those that are nominated. --M ASEM (t) 14:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this. The comments largely confirmed my perceptions about the reasons non-Western deaths are rarely included, although I hadn't previously fully appreciated how much a role the quality of an article plays in its selection for inclusion in this section. This obviously complicates things, because it's not just a case of finding out that non-Western people have died and then nominating them for inclusion - we need a decent article about them to already exist (or we need to write one quickly). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two, unrelated questions here. Question 1 is "Do deaths of Western people get reported more often on the main page" the answer is "Yes".  Question 2 is "What should we do about it?"  If the answer to that question is not "improve Wikipedia articles about non-Western subjects so Wikipedia as a whole becomes better", then you're doing Wikipedia wrong.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that Malick Sidibé is currently on the front page. That's good to see (well, not good that he's died, but you know what I mean). Thanks for nominating him, . Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Doris Roberts
Is there any chance of reopening that RD discussion for Doris Roberts? I'm surprised at how easily people dismissed 5 Emmy Awards. If Marcia Wallace could make the cut, I think Roberts merits more consideration.

I saw the Roberts article last night, and it wasn't perfect, but the problems didn't seem that difficult to fix. And at least a few people opposing the article said they'd support pending article improvements. Zagal e jo^^^ 02:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point,. Besides the nom, there was one support and nine opposes, most of which were not quality based so no matter what is done to article the vast majority is in opposition to its posting. It was a good close. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I never engaged myself at this page, but it is said that an actor must be "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". The problem is that the field of acting is very big, while the field of a freeride snowboarder (Estelle Balet) or a tropical storm scientist (William M. Gray) is small. Not that they aren't important and shouldn't get at the Main Page, but they are rather unknown to the general public while famous actors like Doris Roberts or Abe Vigoda don't meet the RD criteria - they are supporting actors, but well-known because of their long careers. That Doris Roberts isn't at the Main Page (while an important but unknown freeride snowboarder appears there) surely irritates a lot of readers. In my opinion, it should also be considered how big a field is. --Clibenfoart (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If we define her field more narrowly as "TV actresses", then I'd argue that she was at the top of her field. Honestly, I don't usually care that much about RD, but in light of some of the more obscure names that have been there lately, Roberts seems like a glaring omission. Zagal e jo^^^ 13:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well not according to a strong consensus at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like we have a tendency to post too many actors, which is probably a bias of our own for better knowing familiar faces from TV and film than people in climate science and other fields. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Particularly American television actors who, through our systemic bias, are more "popular" and many people erroneously equate "popular" with "notable". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Missed ITN item
I see we somehow missed the English Tiddlywinks Association National Singles this past weekend (30 April-1 May), won by the redoubtable Larry Kahn. It would have made a great blurb. I trust such will not be the case with the ETA Jubilee Trophy and Golden Squidger tourneys this fall. Sca (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT, but thanks for your snide editorializing. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just stating facts. BTW, the American Kahn, defending world singles champion, beat Patrick Barrie 28-7 in the 2016 World Singles championship on 29 April. Alas, we missed that too. Sca (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you were being earnest, you would have improved the articles and nominated them at WP:ITNC. If you were interested in editorializing and making a point that we shouldn't post articles about sports and other competitions you really aren't interested in, you would do exactly what you are doing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And we obviously need an article on the World Worm Charmimg Championships. Beats these dull-as-dishwater English football league wins. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Across the pond, let's not forget the U.S. National Snooker Championships, slated May 27-30 in Brooklyn, a borough of New York City, N.Y. Sca (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Canada fire image
The blurb has (evacuation pictured) and the image has some equally relevant caption. I don't know when the caption started, and i don't really care, but does the box need both? --107.77.232.212 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Leicester image
Not sure if this is the right board for this query, but I'll give it a go.

As an image for Leicester's title win we have Wes Morgan, and a link. I know that usually it's the bolded links that have to be up to standard, but this one on Morgan is a bit substandard: particularly his ten years at Nottingham Forest, which jumps from 2004 to 2008 and to 2011, with a lot of unsourced material. I'm not blaming anyone for that (I tried yesterday to add things to the article but it's a work in progress). A better example to link to content-wise would be manager Claudio Ranieri, which is a very comprehensive article. In addition, much of the coverage of this triumph - in England, abroad, in sports media or otherwise - has put a spotlight on Ranieri. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone has already added Wes as the main image. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's already a new top story and new image. No need to act on this anymore.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump
When Trump is nominated in July, and someone nominates it at ITN/C, can we please leave it open for consideration without the regulars snow closing it? The fact it, it will be in the news, in internationally (even though that's not a requirement). Normally these noms aren't posted, this isn't normal. And if the conservative party put some ultra right wing loon up for election and it made headlines, I'd support that too. This is a major political party in an influential global power, we can do better than proposing a moratorium. --107.77.232.212 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't favor a "moratorium"- but a political party selecting its candidate for high office does not merit posting. ITN would be loaded down with such postings; bias issues would require that all such postings be considered.  As was suggested, if something truly unusual happens at the convention(they take it away from Trump, violence, etc) then maybe. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * the threshold for ITN is quality and "in the news". The Trump nomination ticks those boxes (the articles are excellent). Even Clintons nom won't be in the news except that she'll be vs Trump. All I'm saying is keep the nom open for a real consensus to build. Indiana was the wrong time to post, but in July, let it stay open for a day or two. PS: ITN is way too hung up on unwritten " rules " of "what we do and don't do". Let consensus, not convention decide. --107.77.232.212 (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there an example of consensus not being followed at ITNC please? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To 107.77- conventions flow from consensus, and usually exist for a good reason. If we post a US political party selecting its candidate, we will need to post other nation's parties doing so as well, please review systemic bias. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would depend entirely on if those other political party nominees have quality articles to post. We don't blindly post every article which fits in some arbitrary category.  Correcting systemic bias is about improving Wikipedia articles which need to be improved; not ignoring quality altogether!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said otherwise- but we get enough flak for having a US bias and this wouldn't help. It doesn't depend entirely on quality, otherwise there would be little point to ITNC. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The primary point of ITNC is to assess quality. Every other section of the main page primarily assesses the quality of articles before posting them.  ITNC is no different in this regard.  Other considerations are really only based on individual biases (mostly on what people have "heard about" or "care about" personally) and really shouldn't be assessed.  Quality is the only thing we can assess based on objective criteria beyond "what I, on my own, believe to be worthwhile".  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My proposal of a "moratorium" was not vying to establish a new policy for ITN, but instead to have an ad hoc revocable rule specific to this particular set of stories. If consensus favors it, we maintain this rule until consensus says otherwise. If consensus does not favor it, then as TRM says, ITN is doing it's job.--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * we don't post every nations soccer contests or destruction of contraband. These items are up because they're in the news, that's the benchmark that matters. It's nothing to do with systemic bias. If you want to maintain a list of "things we don't post", fine. Here was a good faith editor adding an item that was in the news and got " no, no, hell no, snow close ". The regulars shutting down an item after a few hours based on some unwritten rules a consensus does not make. --107.77.232.212 (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone that posted "hell no" in the discussion; I see several reasoned arguments. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The only benchmark we have is consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the interest of consensus, I modestly propose that henceforth ITN avoid any and all mention of U.S. politics. This would avoid tiresome bickering such as the foregoing discussion. Sca (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have my support.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't favor foreclosing any area for discussion. ITNC worked properly here and will continue to. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Though Poe's Law applies, I believe that when Sca was modestly proposing his foreclosure, he was channeling Jonathan Swift the satirist.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

– More of an embargo. But who cares about U.S. politics? Much less about He Who Shall Remain – oops, I mean  Nameless. Sca (talk)

(How embarrassing it must be to be an ed at German Wiki, which leads its ITN with: "Donald Trump (Bild) ist nach der Aufgabe von Ted Cruz und John Kasich der letzte verbleibende Kandidat bei der Vorwahl der Republikanischen Partei zur US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2016." – Sca (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The issues is not so much US politics or the like, but that there are stories that have known end-points: the end of a sports tournament, the end of an election cycle, etc. To avoid spamming ITN with all incremental updates, we wait until the end and post that final point where we would otherwise expect no further stories directly related to that. This does not forbid a mid-point story but it should be of high and exceptional interest: for example, I can't say 100% for sure, but should someone pitch a perfect game during the final World Series but not necessarily as the final game, that's got potential as a separate ITN.
 * Right now in the US election cycle, everything is routine business, albeit with several interesting candidates in play. Because of this pool, there is some potential for deviations from standard practice that might be interesting highlights and possible ITN, but we should be aware that the end result, on the first Tuesday in November, will be ITN for certain. --M ASEM (t) 14:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact is that Trump will be the nominee is known now, in May. Therefore, him becoming the nominee in July is a foregone conclusion, making it far less "newsworthy" than if he were to emerge from a contested convention. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be interesting to know the nationalities of those who so quickly voted the Trump story down. My instincts tell me that more than half were American, so if it's not interesting for them, I doubt many of the rest of us would give a tinker's cuss. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * New Zealand-born, but yes. I am American de facto.--WaltCip (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * USA! USA! (and #NeverTrump because #ImWithHer and I #FeelTheBern). I think it's "interesting", but not ITN-level important. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , do you mean to tell me you're not a natural-born U.S. citizen!?! Clearly, that prohibits you from further comments here. Sca (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would direct you to WP:IAR. Since me being here improves the encyclopedia (at least in my opinion), I will continue to comment further.--WaltCip (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just hope your father wasn't involved in the JFK assassination. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * PS –, where did you learn such fluent English? Sca (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you where I didn't learn it - not from Trump! Doh ho ho ho ho...--WaltCip (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't much matter because Donald Trump is getting plenty of traffic regardless. On 3rd May it was one of the top read articles with 288,000 readers.  ITN makes little difference in such cases. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, as Dr. Bob said, "Nothing really matters much, it's doom alone that counts." Sca (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we followed Davidson's approach, we'd have Captain America's latest movie up there, after all this is a cheap tabloid, not an encyclopedia, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be dissing Captain America!--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dare, but I prefer Iron Man myself. Perhaps Davidson will try to get the next Marvel movie onto ITN and stop flogging the dead horse?  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a Captain Anzac? Sca (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The only Captains we have are All-Blacks cricket or footy captains. Whakatu waewae!--WaltCip (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're sadly disadvantaged. When I was growing up, we had Captain Midnight! – Sca (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You do have Dreamguard, who rivals Egg Fu on the "laughable national stereotype" scale. &#8209; Iridescent 16:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam fish
Recently, if you've look at Vietnam news, there have been over a million fish dead that washed ashore on the coast of Vietnam due to ocean pollution and is still rising. I don't know if there's an article about this yet, but if there was, I'd propose it to be featured in this section. FiendYT  ★  04:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but this isn't the forum to suggest the creation of an article, or to nominate an event; please visit ITNC to make a nomination. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Add what an individual was known for to recent deaths
The recent deaths section is currently not very enlightening - it just consists of names that may be totally unknown to readers. Unless they click, they won't learn who these people are. Plus, we have more space than we used to - the main page is now optimized for widescreen display. Therefore to help readers understand who these people are, I suggest we add a short description (just a word or two) of what made each person famous. So for the template we currently have:

we would instead go for:

What do we think? Smurrayinchester 15:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not enough people use widescreen monitors with sufficient resolutions for this to take. It might also not be a good look for people of dubious fame. For instance, do we post "Bernie Madoff (fraudster)" or "Bernie Madoff (financier)"?--WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Suggestion is valid, but it'll burn a lot of screen real estate. WP needs to seriously improve look and feel but that's outside the scope here. --166.177.185.61 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Part of the role of ITN and RD is to highlight articles for people to read; if someone sees a name on RD, most people (I think) will either 1) know who it is and what they do or 2) not know who it is or what they do, but be curious enough to click to at least glance the lead of the article and find out. That's what we want to happen. I'm not sure how much information we should be giving away on the MP with regards to RD's. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But what is there to be interested about when all you can see is the name? Some are interesting (Joseph Medicine Crow got me to click recently) but for the most part, it's just a random selection of names. I don't know how many people were so intrigued by the name "Bill Gray" that they clicked through, for instance. Smurrayinchester 07:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Banedon (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * PS it's ironic how we spend so much time arguing over whether someone is "significant enough" when after all is said and done, for most people, RD is just a "random selection of names". Banedon (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't have the real estate (or else why was there so much debate over if we could just about squeeze a fourth name on there?) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per TRM. Insufficient space, and the information is one click away in the first sentence of the article.  Spencer T♦ C 20:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the idea is to showcase quality content for recent deaths that are in the news. The point is to click and see a well rounded article on their life and acheivements. Stephen 08:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Others have said it well 1) Real estate is already at a premium 2) Unlike print sources, blue links exist for people to learn more if they need to. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 *   Regarding your second reason (I agree with both), assuming he had made it through the ITN/C selection, how would Michael Jackson (writer)'s death in 2007 have been posted? Just using his name (with the correct link of course)? ---Sluzzelin talk  13:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably just like "Michael Jackson" since the "other" one had died previously. I could argue that if we come to a case where the RD of an important person with the exact same name as another, much more household-name person who is very much still alive, that we might look to find a way to qualify the difference to avoid a front page panic, but I've yet to see that situation come up. --M ASEM (t) 14:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has happened. We can't control when people get confused by similarly named people.  This is a problem outside of Wikipedia, and not something we have the capacity to remedy for the world at large.  Consider when George Martin died; the world was pissed they wouldn't get their next Song of Ice and Fire installment.  Not recognizing that he wasn't George R. R. Martin.  This has nothing to do with us, really.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough point. --M ASEM (t) 16:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I agree, it's just a random set of names, especially for readers from outside the English-speaking world (as most RDs are from English-speaking countries). If lack of space is a concern, maybe use smaller font for the description: Lonnie Mack (musician) • Estelle Balet (snowboarder) . 117.221.121.14 (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Thr smalltext suggested by 117... is an excellent idea. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it clear above but I will Oppose this, both as not practical from a technical standpoint and as being unnecessary. If someone doesn't want to click the name upon reading it the profession next to the name will not make it any more likely. I don't think making the text smaller would make enough of a difference to be useful either. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Takes up too much line space. — xaosflux  Talk 15:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the other opposes. Also some people are known for multiple things, and it would not be possible to describe them in "a word or two". Neljack (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Shall we add the recycled proposal as one of perennial proposals? --George Ho (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this specific issue has been raised before more than a couple times (if at all), or if it would be significant enough.  Calidum   ¤   19:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, primarily because the space it would take up. As an alternative, perhaps we could incorporate the relevant information into the mouseover or hover box if it's technically feasible.  Calidum   ¤   19:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Harry Kroto
Is this Nobel laureate really dead? The reference used in the article is a blog from wordpress.com. But I fail to find any newspaper websites reporting this. He surely fits in our RD criteria, although the article needs a lot of cleaning. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {Talk / Edits} 05:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the right venue for this. For content discussion, please use the relevant article talkpage.  To suggest a nomination, use ITN/C.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He might be, but a blog isn't nearly enough proof. I have removed the death information per WP:BLP - he'll remain alive indefinitely unless somebody comes forth with a much better source. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I guessed this would be a better place to get quick reply. Or maybe I should have tried BLP noticeboard. Thanks . §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {Talk / Edits} 07:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rousseff
Given the confusion that reigns over this topic, seems we were wise to hold off on the Dilma Rouseffnom. three weeks ago. Sca (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, given the prospensity of this subject generating news, I think we were wrong to hold off on the nomination. Banedon (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well if we'd have posted it three weeks ago, it would have been long gone by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops! Looks like we may return to it soon. Never assume anything.... Sca (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Plea for sanity
Although we are now seeing increasing numbers of RDs thanks to our trial run of the "inherent notability clause", we are also now seeing masses and masses of noms of woefully unreferenced and unfit articles clogging up the ITN/C page, turning it into a triage for broken articles. This is not our purpose. There needs to be a procedure, I think, where articles should not be nominated until the article is referenced at minimum, and nominations that do not meet this requirement should be speedy closed as such.--WaltCip (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of a speedy close (but with no prejudice to reopen if fixed) that look woefully undersourced in that it would take a good few hours of work to get the article to par for RDs. However, articles that are close enough, maybe needing a handful of citations but something easily done with a few minutes of work, should not be closed off in the same manner. There is a judgement call but it should be up to an uninvolved admin to determine if the snow close of an undersourced article is appropriate or not. --M ASEM  (t) 00:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that these early, completely not ready nominations are part and parcel of the early stages of this trial. There's not much "clogging up" in my mind, we are happily dealing with all nominations, and once the trial settles down a little and people don't get quite so excited, making multiple inappropriate nominations at once for instance, we'll get a better view of what's to be expected going forward.  I recall a time when we had something like five or six stories being nominated per day, that seemed okay at the time, and most of them didn't make it, but each nomination will encourage a range of improvements to each article.  Don't forget the trial only lasts a month, we can cope for a couple more weeks I think.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with TRM. Neljack (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with TRM as well. I haven't found myself overwhelmed with assessing the increased nominations.  People are stress-testing the system, and so far it's working well.  We have a) not posted any article whose quality we regret highlighting on the main page and b) we have not been delayed in timely posting of such quality articles.  Sounds like it's working well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Rousseff image
I propose changing the current portrait of Rousseff to the official one on her page. This is more official than the current one, and gives a better view of her face. It is also of much higher quality than the current one. MB298 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's suggested that it's "too smiley" (perhaps as if she actually enjoyed the suspension), and that it makes her look too young. I agree it's much higher quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC) (looks like we escaped those teeth by a close shave) Note: she looks just as pleased over here, which is where the main link goes. Maybe the Main Page has to look sterner and more serious.

Rousseff Wrong description
The news headline is wrong. Just the upper house voted to impeach her, the lower house just votes if the denounce is valid or not. Frenditor (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The main article says this: "After vote helded in the Chamber on 17 April in favor of beginning impeachment proceedings against Rousseff, it was delivered by Cunha to Senate and confirmed with a 55–22 vote on 12 May, resulting in the suspension of Rousseff's presidential powers and duties up to 180 days." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC) I always like to see voted helded, don't you?
 * By all means report errors at WP:ERRORS. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

5000-1 odds
What happened to the 5000-1 odds? Searching the history it looks like PFHLai removed them. He said this: "I have removed the odds. They were offered months ago and not up-to-date. The odds were not 5000:1 at the time of their clinching the EPL title." What kind of dumb ass comment is that?? The odds at the start of a race or a championship are what matter, not at the end, ffs. Now we have a headline that looks just like any other soccer league win with no indication of why it was in all the headlines? No indication of what a surprise it was. 86.190.2.211 (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To try to specify when the 5000-1 odds were set and have that fit into a limited space blurb seems extremely difficult to do, and just leaving it unqualified gives the wrong impression. Further, while it is impressive that an underdog team won the title, that's a bit of excessive bolstering for ITN's purpose. I think the removal is appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 18:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's removal went against the consensus at ITNC, but hey ho. It's not in the slightest bit excessive to remind readers that this was one of the greatest sporting achievements in the history of association football, but then again I guess most of our audience simply don't get that either.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the ITN/C discussion on the item, I don't see universal support for the odds, several editors that otherwise supported the story calling that "sensationalist", so its removal by PFHLai seems to be a reasonable BOLD move. --M ASEM (t) 18:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about "universal support"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding that the odds provided were not sourced or linked to any actual statistical analysis (who came up with the odds?), listing the odds in the first place is - as stated above - sensationalist and arguably POV. Are we now to list the Vegas odds of any sports victory not considered the favorite? Villanova had 18:1 odds to win the 2016 NCAA Basketball tournament; why not post that? What difference is there between 5000:1 and 18:1? Where's the line drawn? These questions need to be answered before we post bizarre factoids like odds, but I think it's fine to state - for instance - that the victory was Leicester City's first ever.--WaltCip (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The betting odds, especially when listed in such a manner, is a decidedly British phenomenon with limited global reach. Even in the United States, sports betting uses a different 'system' to represent the odds. Therefore, I would argue putting 5000-to-1 so squarely in the face of the reader qualifies as a style of 'jargon' whose meaning is not immediately apparent to the average reader unless they were to click on that article to read about it. We should as a community avoid these kinds of references. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Global reach" is not a goal of ITN, as you well know. The phrase is fine per WP:ENGVAR in any case, again as I'm sure you (should) know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "pre-season long-shot"? --PFHLai (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we're done now, the odds have been removed, we can stop banging on about it. I can't wait for the next "best ever stats US team" nomination at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Talking of which, if the Golden State Warriors win the NBA championship this year, they will close out with the highest regular season record in NBA history. We better make sure to emphasize that for our Western audiences!--WaltCip (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I think the point of the Leicester story is that last year they were nearly relegated.  This year they won the most prestigious and expensive association football league in history.  And no matter what, association football spans the globe, especially with Leicester's owners being from the Far East.  Most of the parochial US sports records are trivia and have no impact at all outside the sports franchises (and US audiences) that buy into them.  "EPL" is a global phenomenon.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I recognize all of that, I would say that my point was specifically to do with the "5000-to-1" betting reference, not on the story itself, which I agree is an amazing story covered around the world. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Coming in late here. Just want to support the removal of the odds. I saw it posted initially and when I went to comment the discussion was already closed, so I'm glad that editors later removed them. I would be supportive of some reference to the incredulity of Leicester's title but the betting reference itself was too trivial (and certainly, 5000-1 odds, while offered by some bookies, were hardly accurate odds), and I'm not sure what else to put in. Had Leicester established a points record or an undefeated season that might have been worth mentioning, as is mentioning their first ever title (now currently in the blurb). While I understand some people may feel the blurb as is doesn't convey the full significance of the event, the details are in the article. I think most of our readers who are interested in the title already have some inkling of how improbable it is. Again, if an alternative blurb that did better convey the story were suggested, I might support it but I do support the removal of the gambling odds from the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest pisser was the fact that the blurb had significant support from the editing community, and just two editors, the posting complainant and the overturning admin worked against that consensus. There's little point in spending time working out a community-driven blurb (regardless of personal opinions) only for it to be over-ridden in one fell swoop, utterly disregarding the consensus that was abundantly achieved.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * TRM Consensus as you know here is an art not a science sometimes. I wasn't part of the original discussion--as I said it was closed before I could oppose.  I think sometimes there is support for a issue one way or the other that isn't registered in !votes or even the discussion. To me it just sticks out as obvious that referring to bookmakers' odds in the blurb is inappropriate for the main page (and again, particularly odds which were not grounded in the actual probability) and I'm confident many editors would agree.  Was there significant support--yes.  But there were numerous opposes as well to any editorialising in the blurb.  It's a pity a clearer consensus wasn't reached on the point.  In any event, I was late to the party but I wanted to register my voice on the matter.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Fort McMurray fire
Surfaced again Tues. on BBC, CBC. Bears watching. Sca (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * True. If this had been already added to the article, and if these sorts of stories had been added along the way, this would have not have been removed from ongoing.  Part of the problem is that, in order to be a resource, Wikipedia articles need to be up-to-date.  If we can demonstrate the article is being kept up to snuff, we can post it back on ongoing... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And Wednesday on Reuters. Sca (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you have not added any new information to the article yet. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor made a new nomination. Is there a purpose to this blog?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To inform the community. And to keep you and Jay on your toes. Sca (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You could have nominated it again if you really believed it to be of note for the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest this discussion be closed as moot. Sca (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The wildfire is in Saskatchewan now.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting updates to the article here. Please make them in the article text, and/or discuss them on the article talk page.  Adding incremental updates here does us no good.  Please just stop.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Stale
Can I ask what constitutes as a stale nomination on WP:ITN/C? I was under the impression that nominations get closed as stale if it is more than seven days old or, if we have a lot of postings, older than the oldest blurb/ongoing/RD on the template. There have been several closures recently that haven't met that criteria. Fuebaey (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are the criteria and I have reopened the three RD nominations Coffee incorrectly marked as stale. While they are older than the oldest RD on there (19th) there are up to four slots on RD and so if the quality of these articles improves sufficiently before they are 7 days old then they can be posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair use content in ITN-nominated articles
Is an image that much of an issue to not mention a person's name on the Main Page? As far as the issue goes, how does it extend to nominations? Wasn't accusing me of not knowing the "fair use" issue premature? Maybe I'm going rhetorical here. The issue seems to be administration discretion more than just fair use. We are not using non-free media in the Main Page, right? So what if a free content does not exist? Which people deserve to be named? --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? A link to somewhere would be nice. -Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, Sally Brampton was supposed to be honorably mentioned, but one could not post her name because a copyrighted image is disputed. --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I meant a person who is now deceased. George Ho (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say we shouldn't post an article with a problematic image such as the one in question (which has since been removed). We wouldn't post an article with a copyvio (text-wise) or with other issues, like a lack of proper references.  Calidum   ¤   22:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * About what do readers want to see or read? Is the image the main focus in readers' minds? If not, is it an introduction (per MOS:LEAD)? If not, about which part of an article do they want to read? --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, but I'd like to point out that In_the_news says that "Articles that are subject to serious issues...may not be accepted for an emboldened link."  Calidum   ¤   23:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How is some image dispute "serious"? By the way, I'll rephrase: at which parts of an article do readers want to look when they access any link from the Main Page? Are they an infobox, an image, an introduction, or which else do you think? George Ho (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read about the use of fair images, you clearly don't understand this situation at all, so you're arguing from an extremely ignorant position I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Watch it. I read the NFCC, and I don't think non-free images of recently deceased people are replaceable under NFCC#1. George Ho (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the NFC guideline doesn't classify those images as "unacceptable". WP:FREER seems vague to deal with this situation. Berta Caceres still has a non-free image, but her death was blurbed without issues, right? George Ho (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The ability to find a free replacement for a no free of a person that just died is presumed to be possible for about 3 to 6 months after the death of that person - whether through contacting family after a fair period of mourning, or searching around. This prevents gaming of NFC just after the person dies since it is arguable no nonfree may be possible, but instead get readers to search before jumping the trigger. --M ASEM  (t) 07:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Must we not post a non-free image of a dead person in three to six months? George Ho (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless you can prove that no free image exists, or that no non-free image could be made non-free, you may not use a non-free image of a person who is living or who has recently died (unless there is critical commentary about the specific image). "Recently" here means, at minimum, "within the last 3 - 6 months". After that time a non-free image may (but is not guaranteed to) meet the non-free content criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In this specific case, the article could be posted if there were a free image or if there were no image (in either case assuming there are other quality issues). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also done the same in Reg Grundy and some others, not just Caceres. However, the actions were after mentioning those names or making deaths blurb-y. Were they acceptable? Since you've held that belief, can you add that as part of unacceptable media in WP:NFC? George Ho (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your question, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that I have looked at the Reg Grundy article for the first time and the fair use image there is unacceptable for exactly the same reasons. I do not have time to look at your other contributions though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase. Shall you propose images of recently deceased as "unacceptable" at WT:NFC or where else? George Ho (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to do so because a free image of a recently deceased person becoming available is only very slightly less likely than one of a subject who is living, thus they cannot satisfy point 1 of the NFCC. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the last part, you meant that non-free images of recently deceased are replaceable? If not, what else do you mean? George Ho (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fair use images are only permitted if a free image does not exist and cannot exist. It is possible that people will upload free images of the recently deceased and/or release non-free images under a free license now no new images can be created. I have started a discussion at WT:NFC anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, back to the original concern, how serious is the issue of non-free files enough to prevent ITN-nominated pages from being posted in the Main Page? Are administrators worried about edit warring over non-free content, a mere infobox image, or what else? After all, a mere image shouldn't affect a page's stability, should it? George Ho (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. It's just about the abuse of the fair use criteria that's going on, everything else is secondary. You need to stop assuming all images of a dead person become fair use the moment they die, that is false. And once again, don't tell others to "watch it", it is you being watched and your actions being scrutinised, not mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Copyright problems (and disputed fair use is a copyright problem) are about the most serious issues an article can have (only some BLP issues are greater), whether that is text or images. There is no way we are linking articles with copyright problems anywhere on the front page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Key to all this is that we want to encourage people to find free images before resorting to non-free. Now, to take a different example, should Kim Jong-un pass away suddenly, we have several months of documented efforts of trying to locate a free image on that talk page. After about a week from that death, it would be completely fair to use a non-free since we already knew this would be hard to satisfy. But for a person that no editors have shown any attempt, we do want people to do a search and try, so the 3-6 month period is mainly to avoid laziness in searching for images. --M ASEM (t) 14:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

As a disclaimer, I was the one who posted that nomination. I disagree with the closer in that this is not a ITN-specific issue. Of the four RD nominations that are posted, three have images:
 * Two have fair use rationales:
 * Susannah Mushatt Jones has one similar to this case.
 * The one in Tony Cozier is inappropriately used for a book cover. (Fair use for book covers are for articles on the book, not the author).


 * One has a CC-BY-SA 4.0:
 * Mustafa Badreddine includes this portrait that can originally be found here, attributed to AFP/Hezbollah. (Though to be fair, this was posted after it went on ITN).

While I agree that incorrect license tagging is problematic, I'd like to see this more consistently enforced - rather than the appearance of it being used to stall and prematurely close a nomination that has consensus. Fuebaey (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've removed the one you have listed which is an abuse of the fair use clause. The other stuff you've written is, well, interesting but of no relevance.  The application of fair use to images is not an RD or an ITN issue, it's a Wikipedia issue.  That some people struggle to even see a problem here, particularly those who aspire to become admins, is terrifying. P.S. If you'd like to accuse me of something like deliberately stalling a nomination, do it, don't just allude to it.  What makes a difference here is that I actually look at articles before judging them, unlike some contributors at ITNC.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It goes both ways, no? Your last sentence also seems to allude to something. But back on topic, I am suggesting that it "appears to be used to stall a nomination" since removing the image would render it eligible for ITN again. "Prematurely closed" refers to the closing of the nomination when there still are two RDs on the template on the same date. The reason why I'm not pressing this any further is because this can go through DYK if ITN are unwilling to post, and I'll probably get round to O'Connor rendering this discussion rather moot. But in the couple of hours till I get there, it would be nice to feature her here. Fuebaey (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all unless you believe you fit that description. I know nothing about the subject matter, those who do have been told that the abuse of fair use images should not be encouraged and we should not be linking to articles on the main page who do abuse this.  It's fascinating to see the number of complainants about this and the trial who actively work on improving articles and ensuring quality, versus the number of complainants about this and the trial who do not.  Besides all that, I am not the only admin here who has shown concern over this kind of negligence.  Nor is their such an entity as ITN that "are unwilling to post".  If people do the work, fix the quality issues, items can be posted.  Unless until the trial ends then items like Mushatt Jones and Brampton won't get a look in at all.  You can have your cake.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble following your chain of thought. Are you saying that Sally Brampton currently contains what you suggest or that Mustafa Badreddine and Mark Lane were not nominated on the same date? Fuebaey (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't reviewed Brampton, I'm sure you can find more than one admin across all of Wikipedia to help you with that. As for Badreddine and Lane, I certainly never said anywhere anything about the days upon which they were nominated, be them the same or different.  I'm sure you're trying to make a point, but I'm missing it.  This discussion is about the abuse of inclusion of so-called fair use images.  Anything else is nugatory or an attempt to rabble rouse.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, that's disappointing since my first diff here was your third signed edit to her nom and I note that you also removed the issue earlier today. I personally don't think reviewing an administrative closure on a relevant talkpage is "nugatory or an attempt to rabble rouse." What I see is sweeping questionable action(s) under the carpet. Fuebaey (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the image, the only thing I was bothered about, in a series of removals of such images. I can't follow your edits at all really, your attempts to shame me or claim some kind of nefarious gaming of the ITN system is tiring, and I'm tired enough of this conversation which isn't doing anything.  I've undone the closure of the discussion so your second or third veiled accusation no longer stands, feel free to continue to talk in circles and hopefully someone else will care enough to listen.  I certainly have better things to do than pander to people who are happy to abuse the fair use of images, or those who make thinly veiled accusations of admin position abuse.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I can only assume you're projecting here. I have no issue with you personally and I dislike negatively fingering editors, especially when it concerns good-faith editing. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies here, which you asked me to elaborate on: Please correct me if that analysis is incorrect. Fuebaey (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I nominated Sally Brampton, who died on the 10 May, shortly before nomination came in for Mustafa Badreddine and Mark Lane.
 * 2) Consensus was reached on quality for the nom.
 * 3) You raised a valid NFF concern and another editor agreed with you.
 * 4) You removed the image from the article.
 * 5) You closed the nom, before Badreddine and Lane rolled off.


 * The administrator turned down speedy deletion requests on non-free images of the recently deceased. Now that the speedy deletion request is no longer possible, perhaps one of us must take individual images to FFD. Plausible? --George Ho (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone may take the images to FFD, but nobody must. I am planning to do this when there has been a judgement about all three. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify "judgment"? Do you mean a talk page, as in here? That wouldn't do anymore. Discussion would go to nowhere if it's about individual images. We have done this method before for complex disputes on files. If you don't do it, then I will. George Ho (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so, you seem to have plenty of time on your hands. Please ensure you phrase the nomination in neutral terms.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, why don't you do it? After all, you were against this trend at the start. George Ho (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not interested George, not interested. If an admin has decided that it's ok to upload images of dead people the day after they die under fair use with no effort at all made to find a suitable alternative, that's his problem.  It would appear to set a terrible precedent, and one which will consume far too much of the WMF's time sorting out the legal issues I'm sure.  Good luck.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about you, Thryduulf? By the way, the administrator made judgments already by rejecting the speedy deletion requests. --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The admin in question said they were not eligible under WP:CSD criteria. That doesn't mean they are appropriate at Wikipedia.  That just means that they need to go through FFD.  In fact, he SPECIFICALLY recommended that you take them to FFD.  Declining a speedy deletion request is NOT an endorsement of the file in question as allowable.  It just means it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletions. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would be fascinated to see the decision on the concept that just because a person is dead for one day, they can have any image uploaded under Fair Use. I saw nothing demonstrated that a free image was even sought, worse, I saw a lame justification for a fair use because "Waiting for three to six months to await free image is too long." or that getting hold of a free image requires "negotiation".  This is utterly pathetic.  If you really care, take the bogus free use images to FFD and we'll see.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Only as a note, from an NFC side, we really have asked CSD people to be very careful about using CSD of non-free, unless it is a blatently obvious problem, as in the past we have had some CSD admins delete based on a claim that, say, NFCC#8 was violated, which is highly subjective. Whether a non-free image of a person can be used immediately the day after that person died is also subjective, as it depends on the intensity of the searching for a free image before that point. (Again, I point to Kim Jong-un, where we have had well-documented efforts to secure a free image with no luck, so if he should die, the allowance for a non-free immediately after his death would be completely fine). Most of the time, this type of effort has not been shown, so the 3-6 month period is aimed to at least have editors try, but that certainly doesn't make the deletion of the image acceptable per the obviousness that needs to be there of CSD. FFD is the right manner to go for the bulk of these. --M ASEM  (t) 19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you do it, Masem? George Ho (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Images now list at FFD - see:. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The general point about death is that the person is then no longer available as a photographic subject (pictures of corpses and coffins are not adequate and would tend to be ghoulish). The death therefore makes it significantly more difficult to get a free image.  This also applies to other people who may have images.  The recent death is not an appropriate time to be approaching them about license terms because they will either be in mourning and/or the subject's legal affairs will be in probate.  The time to get free images is when people are alive and able to pose or facilitate release.  The point of death then changes this and so fair use is then appropriate.  We should not start inventing arbitrary and fuzzy periods of 3-6 months because these would be quite silly in practise; editors would have to keep loading images again and again until one sticks after an indeterminate period.  It's much clearer to have the death as a bright-line rule. Andrew D. (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's true no new image can be created, but that is irrelevant to whether existing images can be uploaded or reliscenced and nobody is talking about talking to relatives while they are grieving (they are not the only people who may have images). Nor is the suggestion that people should continually upload images until they win by attrition being made other than by you (doing so would be Tendentious editing and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as well as harming Wikipedia's use of the fair use exemption to copyright violation where it is appropriate). There can not be a bright line rule because each use of each fair use image must be examined individually based on the individual circumstances. To avoid further repetition I will simply point out that all salient parts of this argument have been thoroughly refuted at Files for discussion/2016 May 21. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, what Davidson et al are deliberately overlooking is that it is possible to create a free version of these images if they are licensed appropriately. Why would Surrey County Council be "grieving" for Brampton?  The salient point to come from Davidson et al is that they are now suggesting that any dead person can have any image of them uploaded and used under fair use until such a time that an alternative becomes available.  That's a game-changing decision that potentially effects hundreds of thousands of biographies of dead people across Wikipedia which have no images.  I for one am looking forward to the precedent being set, but we have to be 100% clear that's what we and the WIkimedia Foundation want and understand by the terms of Fair Use.  I doubt that it is otherwise it is fair to assume (because Davidson et al like to assume) that it would have happened years ago.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson: A clearer bright line rule would be "We don't allow any improperly licensed images ever", but the "we need a pretty picture because words are boring" crowd has decided that any image is better than none. I don't necessarily think we can change that, but your desire to not have to do the hard work of locating or procuring properly licensed images does not override the policy that their use is to be extremely limited.  The use of copyrighted works of dead people is a concession and not an inalienable right.  The concept that there may just not be any images available to use, and thus we just don't have any in the article should not be that hard to grapple with.  But, so long as we have the concession that sometimes, if free images don't exist, we'll allow them in limited use means that the burden of proof that "the images don't exist" needs to lie with the person wishing to violate the "freely licensed only" rule to establish that no, they don't.  In essence (and if the rest of this post is TLDR, I'll bold this so that you can ignore everything else, because this is all that matters): freely licensed images that already exist of a person don't stop existing the instant they die, and you are not absolved of trying to look for them merely because they just died.  For the small subset of people who died during the relatively narrow window of time a) too long ago for copyleft as a concept to have existed and b) to recently for there to be public domain photos of them (i.e. basically someone who lived during the time period from about the 1920s-1990s) we have made the concession that such images very likely don't exist.  For anyone that has died since copyleft has become a thing, it should be relatively easy to procure images of them which are either a) already properly licensed or b) exist, in an unpublished form, and can be published for the first time as copyleft images.  For people who lived prior to the early 20th century, such images are likely already in the public domain.  I'm sorry that we have to tax your brain by requiring you to think and look for images, but if we want a free encyclopedia, we should make every effort to insure we aren't violating the copyrights of others.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem is, these people don't want to do any work, they don't want to show due diligence, they just want a prettier Wikipedia (e.g. who actually cares what the oldest woman in the world looked like a month or so before she died?). The more worrying trend is that if these images are kept (and the votes are heading strongly that way) then the precedent will be set.  The lazy and thoughtless will have won.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting than many projects allow fair use only in very much more limited circumstances than en.wp. For example, the German Wikipedia only allows very old images where the date of death of the creator is unknown (and so may be free anyway). The French Wikipedia allows fair use images of money and recent buildings only. The Dutch and Spanish Wikipedias and most small Wikipedias do not allow any fair use images. The English Wiktionary is the only Wiktionary project that allows it (and it has exactly one page with a free use image Wikt:Citations:thagomizer). Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

template for ongoing
Could someone who knows how to do such things add ongoing (maybe add/remove) to the ITN nom template? it would simplify parsing the data later and make the section stand out better when scrolling that page.

thanks --107.77.233.214 (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on which template/page you mean? I'm guessing maybe Template:ITN candidate, Template:ITN nom or something else? Fuebaey (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Fuebaey, sorry, I meant the ITN candidate template. --166.173.249.68 (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The annon's comment is complaining that nominations for the addition or removal of items to/from Ongoing are not as prominent on the candidates page as regular nominations as the latter have big blue boxes meaning the plain headers for ongoing nominations can get overlooked when scrolling the page. The suggested resolution is to create a template for Ongoing nominations to give them equal prominence on the page. This is an idea that I really like, as I too have noticed the inconspicuousness of Ongoing nominations, however I lack the template skills to do anything about it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A tag for adding ongoing items (similar to the one for RD) was added to the candidate template a year ago, but there isn't one for removal requests. I think it's a decent idea to have separate candidate templates for blurb, RD and ongoing - maybe background colour coded so if you're page scrolling you can quickly recognise what each nom is referring to. Fuebaey (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about suggesting different background colours when I made my above comment. The only consideration is that sometimes whether a death should be a blurb or RD is a subject of much discussion, so a blurb/RD split would not work. However the following may work:
 * Yellow for nominations regarding the death of an individual human (or multiple individual humans with one article), whether blurb or RD
 * Pink for the addition or removal of items from Ongoing.
 * Green for discussion of items that are on ITN/R (where quality is the only consideration)
 * Blue (i.e. no change) for all other nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I've reconsidered, and think it's better to have one template rather than several (more complex = more newbie selection errors). We could instead add a removal option for ongoing and code the background into the existing template. I'm not sure how viable this is because I also don't have that much experience working with templates. Fuebaey (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's viable (e.g. template:edit request changes from a large full-width box to a small ~10% width right-aligned box based on whether the "answered" parameter is set or not). We really need input from someone with template skills though, I'll add a pointer to this discussion at template talk:ITN candidate which might do the trick. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not overlook WP:ACCESS, i.e. do not simply colour code the templates to distinguish between them, a textual indication should be used in conjunction with that. Otherwise I like the idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added a removal option for ongoing. I'll see what I can do with the background (rusty coder). In the meantime, can an admin or someone with template editor permissions please update the editnotice on ITN/C with this documentation? In simple terms, change the instructions for ongoing from (yes/no) to (add/rem/no), like here. Fuebaey (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] S/narky
''Point of information: what is the point of this point of information? Is it a point-making point of information our just a pointless pointed point of information? Either way, I'd suggest the question is pointless and adds nothing, as usual, to this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)''
 * – Pardon me, your lordship, but I'd never encountered the Britishism narky before, so I looked it up and found that meanings attributed to it by Urban Dictionary and Wiktionary are related or parallel to snarky..
 * I am most obliged to your lordship for illustrating both concepts in the otherwise pointless comment above. Sca (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of Template:ITN nom in article space
I noticed Template:ITN nom was used in article space at the top of Battle of Fallujah (2016). I've started a discussion at Template talk:ITN nom as to whether article or talk space is appropriate for such alerts. ITN editors may be interested in this discussion. --LukeSurlt c 14:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton
Aren't we going to note that Clinton became the first woman in history to collect enough delegates to clinch the nomination for President from a major US political party? Seems like a more important piece of news than who won the French tennis open. See "Hillary Clinton Has Clinched Democratic Nomination, Survey Reports", The New York Times, June 6; and "Hillary Clinton: Becoming Presumptive Democratic Nominee Will ‘Send a Signal Around the World’", ABC news, June 7, 2016 -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First someone would have to nominate it at WP:ITN/C. But to answer your question, no we're not, because we didn't note that Trump won his nomination. We'll post the winner of the presidency as we do every four years. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering you've been around here for a decade, I'm shocked to learn you don't understand how the ITN section of the main page works. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Christina Grimmie
Should Christina Grimmie be added to the Recent Deaths? She's surely famous enough, her death is already getting a lot of media attention, and it's a murder or a celebrity, which is relatively rare. If not now, maybe once the story has developed more? (YourAuntEggma (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Please visit the nominations page to make a nomination, if it hasn't been nominated already. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been; I invite you to comment. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Images for RDs
My main reaction to the messy discussion on ITN/C at the moment (won't name it but I'm sure you can all guess which one) is why we do not consider RD postings for the image slot. I accept that this is the current standard, but going forward I'm curious as to whether there is any appetite to consider whether this should remain the case?

I was more active before RD first came in and when it was being introduced, and IIRC the swing argument for RD was that if someone is well known then nationality and reason for notability are redundant for a death in ordinary circumstances – this view is backed up by the current guidelines which imply an ordinary death should only have a blurb if notability passes a very high bar, but highly unusual circumstances of death sometimes justifies a blurb for someone who clearly doesn't meet that bar.

And, looking at the current situation, we have an image of someone whose achievement justifying a main page posting was eight days ago, when we have good images for someone better known and whose death was much more recent than the French Open. The death has ended up at RD because a blurb would be largely redundant (anyone who has heard of the person will know where they're from and what they did, anyone who hasn't either won't care or will click through in curiosity and find that information out within the first sentence).

I want to be absolutely crystal clear that I am explicitly NOT asking for the image of the person I elude to above to be posted, as IAR on the main page rarely ends well. What I'm asking is whether, going forward, we should consider changing the criteria for the lead image to include RDs, if the existing image is relatively stale? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)