Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 61

Proposed images from the RD section
Checking the guidelines I found this "The picture must be of a person or event mentioned in a blurb.". That probably predates RD, and certainly the RFC simplifying RD. I propose changing it to "The picture must be of a person or event currently featured in the ITN template". This opens it up for RD, also ongoing, whatever. Cornell vs Eurovision guy is irrelevant, so please leave it on the floor of ITN/C where it belongs. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support (obviously?) as nominator --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the only caveat being that we don't push RD listings over one line for the "majority" of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I don't expect an RD to regularly provide the image, but it can be useful in cases like today's (when an RD nearly had support for a blurb, and the existing image wasn't that important), or when the same image has been "stuck" on the mainpage for a long time because there haven't been any new stories with usable images, like Sergio Garcia recently. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It was a narrow set of circumstances that brought it about.  There's no need to legislate to allow it, but let's remove outdated rules that could potentially disallow it.  Stephen 23:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but I would only think it necessary if we have had a stale news week and the same picture from a blurb has been around for a few days, and its clear from discussion that the RD, while not a blurb, had more attention in the news (as in the case of Cornell) compared to an average death. I wouldn't spell that all out, but would leave that to discussion during RD nomination. But as soon as a blurb with a usable pic comes along to replace, we should do that. --M ASEM (t) 00:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per User:Stephen. I support the general idea but not when another image of a topic with a blurb exists. Cf. today's main page errors. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am not convinced of our ability to make image decisions on the fly because only one person here acknowledged Mr. Rouhani whose photo was displaced for a time. Also I'm curious, doesn't the mobile app take its own photo from the news blurbs? On Android this morning I had a logo for the Mumbai Indians. So maybe no image when there is none is just fine. Except now I worry about fair use. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair use images will not appear on the main page unless something has gone really wrong, and that's irrespective of whether images are allowed for RDs or not.  I'm interested to know how you saw the Mumbai Indians logo, what page were you viewing?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just tapped the Wikipedia icon and the logo is still there now, so I imagine it's the main page in English. (Sorry, how do I get the URI?) WP for Android 2.5.195-r-2017-04-21. It is not in the same order as the mobile view page (it is in the order News, Featured Article, Trending, Picture of the Day, Today on WP). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have uncovered a bug in the Android version of mobile Wikipedia, I'd suggest posting this to the Village Pump because we cannot allow fair use images on the main page. Period.  That this has nothing to do with the current debate isn't really important, we must follow this up.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Android app, the lead image for every bolded article linked in the In the news blurbs is shown - regardless of what the ITN image on the ITN template is. Fair use images appearing here is an issue for the Android app developers but I don't know off the top of my head where to bring that up. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reported to Phabricator. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Displaying a photo of an RD-only posting is graphically counter-intuitive and will confuse most readers. Sca (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with all the "support votes" above. Because I agree that, in general, this is an attempt to remove outdated rules (per Stephen). And because I think Black Kite is on the right track here, that this particular Chris Cornell situation justified an RD image placement. So that, in the future, this could (and sometimes should) be part of the discussion during the specific RD nomination process (per Masem, above). But in general, not much has changed: in most cases, the image will be associated with the blurb, and administrators will lean in that direction. But as the nominator here, Cosmic Adventure, has stated: we have now opened up the entire ITN template for the potential inclusion of an associated image. - Christian Roess (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If, alas, that were to become policy, the (pictured) note should go with the name under 'Recent deaths.' That at least would provide a visual cue as to why such a pic was being run. But I still strongly oppose posting ITN pics related to RD-only postings. Totally illogical in terms of graphics, IMEJO. Sca (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with (pictured) going with the RD or ongoing item, that's how it's done with blurbs. Makes sense to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - It's an unnecessary rule. we can reply on community/admin judgement to work out the appropriate approach case-by-case. The current approach of almost always going for a recent blurb's picture is appropriate --LukeSurlt c 20:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if a RD deserves to have an image, it should become a blurb. Banedon (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Sca (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So if we had five blurbs, none of which had an image, you'd rather run ITN with no image over running it with an image related to an RD? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm against confusion. Sca (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well OTD has the (pictured) somewhere in its midst and no readers have become "confused", so I don't see this as an issue. It's a standard case of editors making problems up that our readers don't actually experience.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Definitely not making up this problem. It's long been known in journalism, and in publishing generally, that readers tend to assume an image is associated with adjacent text even when it's not. Standard antidotes are boxes and rules. The (pictured) note with an RD name would be a partial antidote, but only a palliative, since it would appear at the bottom of the copy block, where it would be less noticeable than one appearing with a blurb.
 * Anyhow, there's always plenty of non-ITN 'art' to break up the main page graphically. Sca (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have we had a situation with five blurbs and no possible images for any of them? I can't remember one, I must say. BencherliteTalk 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We have, don't ask me to find them though, at least twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly feel there are always images to use. E.g. right now the Manchester Arena article has an image available, the 2017 Indian Premier League article has an image available, and so on. In fact there are images to use for all six blurbs on ITN right now. It's just a matter of using them. Banedon (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Banedon "if a RD deserves to have an image, it should become a blurb." <-- why? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not Banendon but I have a similar opinion - if a death is notable or important enough that an RD listing is not sufficient then it is notable or important enough to be a blurb. If it isn't notable or important enough to be a blurb then it isn't notable or important enough to have an image. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Same question to Thryduulf -- why? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That was my answer to this question, but if you want me to try phrasing it a different way: There are three sections to ITN - blurbs, ongoing and RD. Blurbs come with images, the others don't. If someone is significant enough to merit an image then their death is significant enough for a blurb. There is not and should not be an RD+ listing that comes with an image (posting the image of Chris Cornell when there was not consensus for a blurb was a mistake imo, and suggesting that his image should take precedence over the image associated with a more recent story was even more of one). Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically per Thryduulf - blurbs take up more space and more words than RDs, and are more visible; it doesn't make much sense to me to associate an image with something that takes up less space (and by association isn't very important). Banedon (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Blurbs come with images, the others don't." -- why? "If someone is significant enough to merit an image then their death is significant enough for a blurb." -- why? "There is not and should not be an RD+ listing that comes with an image" -- why? I understand your position, I'm asking you to justify it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just did (see size remark). I don't understand why you don't understand the justification. Banedon (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ""Blurbs come with images, the others don't." -- why?" This is a simple statement of the status quo, and per Banendon the blurbs are the most important and the text the image is associated with. It's up to you to explain why ongoing and/or RD should have images. Your next two questions suggest you haven't actually read what I wrote - there are only two sorts of listing a death can take, RD or blurb (as we don't have an obituary section) - RD entries do not come with an image (this is a factual statement of the status quo) and a blurb indicates greater importance than RD (this is a factual statement of the status quo) therefore there is no possible scenario currently in which someone's death is not important enough for a blurb but is important enough for an image, therefore the only way a death can be acompanied by an image is if it is significant enough for a blurb. There is not third option. I oppose the creation of a third option because I see no justification for it (if you disagree, please explain why) because it would lead to the exact sort of arguments about importance that last year's RfC about RfD has all-but successfully eliminated. So, some questions for you - why do you want to change status quo? Why is the current situation bad? How and why will will your proposal be better than the status quo? What criteria (objective or subjective) are you proposing to implement to distinguish RD only from RD + image from blurb? Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per Banedon LordAtlas (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, if this rule change goes through, we have only this one case, so far, to establish precedence, e.g. the one that's outlined by Black Kite above. So to recap: by my count we had 5 "support blurb" votes and 5 "oppose blurb" votes for the Chris Cornell blurb. And we had an image (of Salvador Sobral, if I'm not mistaken) posted that was "stale" and/or "stuck" in the ITN section during a "slow" news cycle. Also, you'll recall that Cornell's death was unexpected (a suicide), and he was an important figure in his profession who had a quality article. My point being that the unexpected death of an important figure in his/her field will often generate a blurb. (And not to trivialize this, but let me point out that Salvador Sobral shared the same profession with Cornell, but clearly Sobral was not an important figure in his field. So that it was, in my opinion, "unseemly" to allow a singer, who was a contest winner, take precedence here in image placement). So an unusual set of circumstances occurred here, and this kind of "perfect storm" is not going to happen very often. So in this case, the administrator (Black Kite) exercised sound judgement here. And then, finally, as soon as a new blurb was added into the ITN template's "first" position, the RD (i.e.,Cornell) image was replaced. Christian Roess (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as instruction-creep, and leave to IAR common sense in any particular set of circumstances. (1) I'm not madly taken by the idea of having a general rule allowing an RD image as a consolation prize for someone who nearly deserves a blurb, because then we create a third level of deaths (blurb; RD + image; RD) with extra scope of disagreements, and goodness knows that we have enough problems sometimes with simply blurb v RD. If there is no consensus for a blurb, there is no consensus for a blurb - that's simple enough. (2) As shown by one of the links earlier in this discussion, it is confusing to have an RD with an image because the RDs are at the bottom of the section and this attracted adverse comments at WP:ERRORS (including one about an exception being made for white American men - note that the next request for an RD+image was Roger Ailes, the white American founder of Fox News...) (3) Making a rule for this will simply lead to further attempts to make this approach less exceptional and more routine, when the general tone of the above discussion seems to me to be in favour of it only being a very rare use.  That's why we have IAR, really.  BencherliteTalk 13:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * the reason why we run into situations where "instruction-creep" occurs is because the current rule does not give us the requisite flexibility that will need to be exercised in each particular circumstance (i.e.., utilizing sound judgement on a case-by-case basis). So really it's the opposite of what you are claiming here. And it's the other way around: it is the current rule that has too many constraints, and not enough flexibility. And that is what is sewing the seeds for "instruction-creep," and that is what is leaving us open to these accusations of "bias." And yeah, someone is always going to be offended and utilize "identity politics" so that they can point to some kind of bias vis-á-vis their own brand of "identity politics" (race, religion, gender, national origin) to explain why they don't get their way, or why something seems unfair or unjust: that's just the climate we live in. This current proposal is flexible and clear-sighted, because it opens up the whole ITN template (blurbs, ongoing, RD's) to possible image placement, with the recommendation and guidance to the administrators that they will, in most cases, use an image that is associated with the most recently added blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposal above doesn't give any guidance or recommendations, in fact: "The picture must be of a person or event currently featured in the ITN template". This opens it up for RD, also ongoing, whatever. We have flexibility because we have a rule and we have IAR, which was successfully invoked here (in the same way that we didn't need a rule to put Ian Brady in RD). BencherliteTalk 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we have rules first, and that's what gives us flexibility. Provided that the rule is delimited in such a way that the boundaries are clearly defined without being arbitrary. Most artists create starting out under constraints (rules), and not the open field. They have greater flexibility and creativity provided that rule is clearly defined and not necessarily arbitrary. In my opinion, the boundary is more clearly defined if it stays within the ITN template (blurbs, ongoing, RD's). That's a rule (constraint) that is clearly defined. The rule here, that the image is limited to the blurb, is arbitrary. Why do we have it? Why do we need it? Christian Roess (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BURO. The page should describe, not pre-scribe practice. As there is reasonable consensus that an RD-only image is acceptable if no other images is possible/staleness and demonstrated with Cornell, it makes sense to update the documentation of that practice, which requires a minor tweak in the existing wording, with IAR giving us the necessary flexibility for that. --M ASEM (t) 15:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written. I would however support (as many of the !votes have above) a caveat allowing RD images if a blurb image is stale or unavailable. That way we're not deliberately inserting an image as a memorial because just died. For the record, I'm not wildly enthusiastic about RD blurbs either, but that's for another discussion. Fuebaey (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly. It depends. I am offended by the picture of the Iranian president, who probably thinks I spend too much time at WP:LGBT Studies! I would rather see Roger Ailes's picture on the main page, but perhaps our feminist readers would get offended? It is tricky.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand. Are you saying images should be selected according to how positive/negative the emotional reactions they might evoke among readers? ---Sluzzelin talk  20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fuebaey, whose image would you most like to see on any given day? Sca (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * a) I did not get your ping. I read somewhere that if you don't include your signature in that edit, the ping doesn't go through. b) I do not follow your argument. The indentation suggests you were replying to Sluzzelin or Zigzig20s. c) I do not understand the relevancy of your question. Neither my original comment nor the proposal makes any mention of personal preference. Fuebaey (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was sort of a joke. And it wasn't a ping, just a username – modified due to your apparent lack of a user page. Sca (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sca, you are aware that if you mention someone by their linked username, you are pinging them, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Reboot I suggest we change the "must" to a "should" to allow for cases where images are outstaying there welcome or where no images are available. Most admins can be trusted to apply suitable editorial judgement when it comes to posting an image of an RD, and that includes disallowing fair use images.  As soon as a suitable (or non-stale) image is available, the RD image would simply be replaced.  Replacing the "must" with "should" will just demonstrate that we trust most of our admins to conduct their business to the advance of the encyclopedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The ITN image should always relate to the most recent blurb for which an image is available (and suitably protected). If there are no blurbs for which an image is available then ITN should simply run without an image. Anything else risks making ITN into a popularity contest or endless arguments about whether a given story or death deserves an image more than any other current one. More arguments at ITNC is (almost) the last thing we need. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're well down on the number of arguments we used to have at ITNC since the RD RFC passed. I also think that having no image at ITN is a non-starter because it looks utterly clumsy and would attract readers' attention that we're not doing something right.  We all need to start thinking about this more from the readers' perspective rather than from the machinations of ITN and voting etc.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So what would we do if RD was empty, or none of the people listed there had free images? I might be ok with the most recent entry in RD with a free image being used iff none of the blurbs have a free image but when was the last time this actually happened. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no justification for posting an image merely for the sake of posting an image in a spot where one usually is seen. News is what happens. Images associated with news usually are available, but not always. Sca (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support a reasonable suggestion that allows us to avoid staleness. The matter would still be open to discussion and administerial oversight. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to "avoid staleness." Slow news days/times always have occurred and always will. ITN can only reflect what is truly in the news. We are not an entertainment medium. Sca (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Work backwards from that. "We are not an entertainment medium"  Therefore, it makes total sense to have the Eurovision winner up for a week? μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red herring, I'm afraid. Posting the winner was not itself entertainment, it was news – of a sort, to be sure, but it was in the news. Sca (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Conditional support.. I don't oppose the idea in principle, but I do share the layout concern.  Ideally, we should devise an implementation that enables the image to appear at the bottom of the section instead of the top.  —David Levy 23:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the most sensible and effective antidote proposed so far (though I remain opposed in principle to RD-only photos) . Sca (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the reasoning of μηδείς(above). 50.201.41.253 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * μηδείς supports? But you oppose? Christian Roess (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Ironically, it was μηδείς' illogical Support reasoning that convinced me to Oppose. 50.201.41.253 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Main page images: Suggested objective criteria
The criteria below should be used when selecting which image to use in the ITN template:
 * 1) The most recent blurb with a suitable image
 * 2) If there are no blurbs with a suitable image, then the most recent ongoing entry with a suitable image
 * 3) If there are no blurbs or ongoing entries with a suitable image, then the most recent RD entry with a suitable image
 * 4) If none of the blurbs, ongoing or RD entries have a suitable image then do not use an image.

In all cases a "suitable" image is one that meets all the following criteria. Some of these are subjective, and so images should be discussed at WP:INTC along with the nomination. If there are multiple suitable images then which to use should also be discussed with the nomination. An image that is not currently on the main page and has not recently appeared on ITN is preferred if possible.
 * Free (non-free images are only permitted in articles)
 * Relevant to the story it is illustrating.
 * Clear at small resolutions (cropped versions can be uploaded if required)
 * Protected (locally if uploaded here, on Commons if not)

General notes:
 * There is no minimum time for which an image will be displayed.
 * An image will not necessarily be posted at the same time as its associated story (e.g. if it is not yet protected or discussion about it is ongoing) but will not appear before the story.
 * An image will not appear after the story it is associated with is removed from the template (for age or other reasons), but may be replaced by an image associated with a newer story before then. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think we need a '"guideline" here and not a hard-and-fast rule. After that we have to put our faith in administrators, and trust that they can discern what's best for each given situation. Maybe that's the point of TRM's "reboot": replacing "must" with "should." Should is a guideline. Must is a rule. Frankly, I was appreciative of Black Kite's decision in reopening the Chris Cornell discussion to another consideration (e.g. use of an image, but no blurb) and I want guidelines that give administrators that kind of flexibility in the future. Really, I thought administrators were already given that kind of leeway, until this controversy erupted. Christian Roess (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well generally yes, but the discretion comes within bounds of guidelines and policies. Personally I think the Chris Cornell decision was exactly the wrong one (i.e. it should have been blurb + image or RD only, for the reasons I explain above). In the case of this proposal whether the criteria are a guideline to follow in most cirucmstances or a policy to be differed from only when there is a solid IAR reason to do so is up for discussion. What constitutes a suitable image can't really be varied (other than the interpretation of the subjective items) as it's a combination of policy (e.g. WP:NFC) and obvious common sense (e.g. in what circumstance would posting an irrelevant image improve the encyclopaedia?). The general notes are basically a statement of current practice that has evolved because it logically follows from other policies and guidelines. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I just say that I wouldn't have promoted the Cornell image had not (a) the existing image been really trivial; i.e. the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest, someone who will almost be forgotten in a week (can you name them now, even if you watched it?) and (b) had Cornell not had significant support for a blurb, even if that did not rise to the level of posting (it was close - I almost posted it myself until it got a flurry of opposes). This is not going to be a regular thing - let's not leave admins unable to make decisions for themselves. Wikipedia is far too busy with rules and regulations sometimes (a lot of the time, actually), and often it doesn't help it become a better place. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the winner of the world's most watched song contest is "trivial" then there should be no problem getting consensus to remove it from ITN/R. Until such time as you (or someone else) actually puts their money where their mouth is (so to speak) please can we stop with the needless denigration. The point of this proposal is to put an end to that sort of my news story is more important than your news story so mine should get the image nonsense by codifying what has been the status quo for years - namely that the most recent blurb with a suitable image is the one that is illustrated, regardless of what it is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The more I read this, the less I am for changing this rule sentence at all. That's all it is. Something that can be IARed with consensus if necessary. What irks me even more is the justification given for the original issue. Imagine if it wasn't a song contest, say it was the Super Bowl or the World Cup. Imagine if it wasn't the lead singer of a well known band, say it was a little known MP in Asia or lesser known professor from Africa. Because the last image been really trivial (sic) smacks of personal preference. If you can't remain impartial when posting, please don't bother. Fuebaey (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Order of removal
Yesterday you replaced Gregg Allman with Manuel Noriega: but shouldn't Denis Johnson have been removed instead? He died three days before Allman did. Vanamonde (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also pinging, since you know stuff like this. Vanamonde (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like Denis Johnson should have been filed under 24 May, not 28 May. Even his nom, listed on 26 May, would have meant he was the one to go.  I would replace Johnson with Allman post-haste. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think posted it inadvertently with the date on which he added it to the template, Jayron just followed the normal route of replacing of the oldest one... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, TRM is exactly right in his assessment: Denis Johnson needs to be dropped from the list and Gregg Allman should be added back on. I would also add that by the time Bongwarrior posted Greg Allman, the Denis Johnson nomination had already been marked "Ready" (by TRM I believe). Therefore, Bongwarrior should've posted Denis Johnson first. Next, an assessment of the status of the Jim Bunning RD nomination shoud've been made (and maybe even posted Bunning to RD, too). And then, finally, Bongwarrior should've posted Allman as the newest RD. Instead, Denis Johnson & Jim Bunning RD nominations were posted 24+ hours after Greg Allman was posted. Christian Roess (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed my mistake and reinstated Allman over Johnson. Thanks all. Stephen 22:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Flood in Sri Lanka and Cyclone Mora
There are two nominations with the titles "Sri Lanka Flood" and "Cyclone Mora". First one has no blurb and second one has "oppose". Therefore, I made 3rd nomination with the title "2017 Sri Lanka floods" and blurb. But it quickly closed by saying "Duplicate" without concern of nominator. First and second nominations just lay at ITN without improvement. The quick "close" seems to me irrelevant. However, I created the page, 2017 Sri Lanka floods and updated. These kind of practice wouldn't be good and push the editor away. --Ant a n O 11:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're definitely more than welcome to propose a blurb at In_the_news/Candidates. Just because someone else nominated the article doesn't mean you can't suggest changes, propose alt blurbs, or even suggest a different target article. Best,  Spencer T♦ C 18:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the event is still happening and making news (certainly seems like it), I don't mind if you reopen the latest nomination and close the original one ("superseded by later nomination" or something like that). Banedon (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Permanent link to List of ongoing armed conflicts under ongoing
Although wars are huge and tumultuous ongoing events, the sustained and widespread nature of them makes it difficult to cover these wars in ITN, either as blurb items or under the ongoing section. There is a decent article List of ongoing armed conflicts that lists, organises, and links to the appropriate articles concerning current wars. Maintaining a permanent link to this article would mean that main page readers are two clicks away from the articles about these conflicts.

I suggest this appears in italics as: Ongoing: Current conflicts,

This would not preclude major events in these conflicts being ITN items. --LukeSurlt c 10:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This sounds more like a Main Page change than an ITN item as you are proposing a permanent change to what appears on the Main Page. If this was done I suspect we would be flooded with requests for other subject areas to get some sort of permanent link(sports and elections already get similar requests). If this was done I don't think it should permanently take up space in Ongoing. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is a slippery slope as 331dot points out. Additionally, not ongoing armed conflicts are necessarily ITN; many are very long-tail conflicts that may get a blip of coverage here and there but not the type that we'd expect to be highlighted continuously (as with Ongoing stories), so it fails there as well. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The extreme systemic bias for death and destruction at ITN is bad enough without intentionally making it a permanent fixture. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Order of posting
Am I right in thinking that this post should have been to the first rather than the second slot? Is it not a few hours newer than the U.S. withdrawal? Vanamonde (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The pictured item is in the highest slot for its respective date, and per WP:ITN, "Blurbs are posted in rough chronological order by the date when the event occurred. There is usually no effort made to be more specific than the date, and admins will generally not research the exact minute when an event occurred to make sure that multiple events that occurred on the same date are strictly in order." Hope that helps explain why I added it below Trump.  Spencer T♦ C 10:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you. I'm still relatively new to the entire ITN business. Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, hope that helps. Feel free to let me know if you have any other ITN questions down the road. Best,  Spencer T♦ C 18:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Abandon "In The News"
I don't think "In The News" belongs in the encyclopedia at all. It is a deep sink for badly needed elsewhere volunteer labour, a cause of pointless argument when we have enough of those, and encourages some in the belief that Wikipedia is a tickertape news service. Opinions? Comments? Britmax (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Needing help elsewhere is not a reason to get rid of this portion of this whole volunteer project. "Pointless argument" is subjective. This is a way to improve articles and highlight topics of interest to help readers. I invite you to participate instead of just driving by to call for removal.331dot (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We do our best to avoid being a news ticker, again please participate to see for yourself. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd support deprecating it altogether—IMO its original purpose of highlighting to readers that Wikipedia covers current events as well as historical topics is long-since redundant now that the world is familiar with Wikipedia, and it's become a net negative in drawing readers' attention to what are by definition those Wikipedia articles that are least likely to be stable and most likely to contain errors and unbalanced reporting. However, you'll never get consensus for removing a single element from the main page (and if that discussion were to be had, you'd almost certainly find much more support for putting DYK out of its misery). The only way you'll get consensus to remove an element from the Main Page is through a broader discussion about a complete Main Page redesign, as removing any one element from it will just prompt a discussion of "well, what would we use to fill the empty space?". &#8209; Iridescent 12:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be an interesting discussion, but my answer to the question would be "anything that gets the original mission back on track". Britmax (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly support a complete revamp of the main page and deprecate in the news as out of news for today's Wikipedia but I expect someone will soon be wheeling out the old WP:PEREN chestnut... oh, wait... Aiken D 12:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To cut-and-paste an old comment of mine to save retyping it, "Back in 2004 when the elements of the MP were created, there were clear purposes to all the sections—DYK to demonstrate that the project was growing, ITN to demonstrate that the project was current, OTD to demonstrate that the project wasn't recentist and TFA/TFP to demonstrate that not everything on the project was as shitty as the contents of DYK, ITN and OTD. Nowadays, every reader is aware of what Wikipedia is, and that some articles are very good and some of them are terrible." I still stand by that; IMO the need to demonstrate the breadth of content is no longer an issue since everyone knows that Wikipedia covers a wide variety of topics, and Wikipedia's readers nowadays would be much better served if the articles displayed on the main page were a selection of well-written articles that were selected on the basis of whether they were interesting, not on whether they comply with arbitrary criteria (TFA), were recently created (DYK) or were recently amended (ITN). &#8209; Iridescent 12:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's still a function to ITN which brings editors to the project. A front page without current news on it would need something to fill the space. I can think of nothing suitable. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm expect this to SNOW so I'll keep it brief. The four stated purposes of ITN are important and are addressed by ITN in its current state. The argument that en:Wikipedia has already proven it is good for keeping track of current events and therefore no longer needs to advertise this is doesn't hold water for me - we need to continually show this for new and old readers alike. The argument that ITN "uses up editor time" is weak as well - shutting down something a person is involved with doesn't mean they'll cheerily transfer their efforts to something you approve of more. --LukeSurlt c 12:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the issues people have against ITN is a systemic problem about the general loss of how WP:NOT is enforced. Too many people working on breaking current events that really need more hindsight before we can write appropriately about them. ITN should not be shuttered just because editors who do a lot of work in this area (despite this not being an area we're supported to be working ion) are upset that ITN doesn't seem to reflect that. If we get better project-wide recognizition of NOT#NEWS, then ITN should be less controversial than it has the last few months. --M ASEM (t) 13:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Great feature for our readers on the main page, great way to highlight our work, often a motivating factor to improve articles (even create some in the case of RDs).Zigzig20s (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is still going to keep covering topics which are in the news. It is sensible to have a main page section for this as it helps to provide a structure for such work and also assists readers in locating topics which they may otherwise have difficulty finding.  Of course, there is room for improvement in the way this is done but you could say this about anything.  For example, while ITN is often quite stale, it usually covers more vital topics than the Featured Article section which often seems to be scraping the barrel with topics like  Akodon spegazzinii (which didn't have a picture of the creature when that's a sine qua non) or the Menacer – an antique console accessory which was a flop in its day.  What I'd like to see is a configurable main page, so that the reader could choose the layout and content.  Myself, I'd have the featured picture at the top as it is usually easy on the eye, quite interesting and accessible. Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Come back to me on this one when the far more pressing issue of the shambles that is DYK is addressed. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose While imperfect, ITN serves a useful function in promoting solid articles about subjects that are currently being discussed in the media/press. Insofar as it is at times messy, inconsistent in its standards and generally falls short of perfection... well that pretty much describes the whole project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Many would probably agree that our "Main page" is the visible beating heart of Wikipedia. And imo, ITN is a crucial hub for all that activity. Also, it's become a good place where readers of Wikipedia can learn to become contributors to Wikipedia. And contributing is the lifeblood of the project (or the experiment) that is Wikipedia. Anyhow, contributing specifically to ITN is a good learning tool for those who are new, or want to get involved and learn how to contribute. It's truly "hands on" training: you're bringing to the table something you care about, and you want to learn how to do it right. And for those of us who aren't "new", and who've done this awhile, contributing to ITN continues to be a lesson in humility. Because when you get involved with ITN, it's for real, and you're going to get your hands dirty. I'd also add that the "Main page" is averaging 19,961,060 page views (that's almost 20 million views) daily. And If you track these things, inclusion in the ITN section adds significantly to these numbers. What better way to attract current and future readers and contributors? Christian Roess (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The "tickertape news service (waaa WP:NOT)" argument is tired and old. WP is an online resource, it can be dynamic, it doesn't have to be a pastel and white carbon copy of dusty books sitting on a shelf. Come on. I agree with User:Iridescent's quote about the MP features.
 * I DO think that the "ITN regulars" should take a break. All of you. Wander off for a few months and see what happens. You've got this whole collection of unwritten rules about what you do and do not post (sub-national elections, "minor" sports, anniversaries, most awards, most anything about the united states, any celebrity news, updates to long running stories) and you all bicker back and forth relentlessly "We didn't post A so we shouldn't post B". "X is insignificant when Y wasn't even nominated". You get the old standby "If you want more stories nominate more stories" but if it violates an unwritten rule Stephen will run by and SNOW close it within a few hours. The result? It's become the death and destruction box. I know I'll get shouted down for even suggesting this, but whatever, if you really love the project, you'll set it free. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Old standbys are old standbys for a reason. Consensus also exists for a reason- at least until someone works to change it.  The only unwritten rules are the ones people choose to see. If you want to post "minor sports" or every time Kim Kardashian changes her hair as encyclopedic information in the ITN box, then get consensus to. It really is that simple.  I'm not going anywhere; nor do I wish anyone else to. I want to get broad consensus for what we do and we need people particulating to do it. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, not that simple, such noms get snow closed in just a few hours. I didn't expect you to take the suggestion seriously, but it was a serious suggestion. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Who said that your suggestion was not serious? Not me.  I take everything I read at face value as a genuine suggestion.  If you or anyone feels that a SNOW close was invalid,(like if because you support the item) you are allowed to reopen it. Despite what it says, nothing is written in stone.  331dot (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It literally says "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.". "Please do not modify it" is literally bold and red. I mean, come on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why we have WP:IAR. If someone in good faith believes something was improperly closed and might have a chance at changing the consensus, you can remove it- just as you did with the Kathy Griffin nomination.  I think it was properly closed, as posts subsequent to your reversal bore out.  This isn't an "unwritten rule" about what we don't post, but established consensus,(Wikipedia runs on consensus, remember) and frankly I find it offensive when you say the rest of us don't know what the hell we are talking about and should go away. Everyone who wants to (yes, even you) can and should participate to establish the best possible consensus. That doesn't mean though that we should waste our time with things the community is well aware will not be posted.  331dot (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL, I WP:IAR and re-open a discussion that you, in good faith, think was closed improperly and the "regulars" pile on opposes and a couple of trolls wander past your user page. That's exactly what you get for breaking an unwritten rule at ITN. Nice. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And please explain (for example) how when one subnational election is posted that we say no to the next one. We need editorial judgement, which is arrived at through consensus. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well step 1 is to break out of that "precedent" mindset ... that's how it turned into the death and destruction box: The only thing you can all agree on is death and some sport. Everything else is a battleground. As for your example, it's simple: You check if it's "In the news" and if there is a quality article. If the election for the Manitoba legislature is a stub with no prose and little coverage, it doesn't go up. If the Delhi, or Tokyo or London or whatever mayoral election is in the news, and has a great article, it's goes up. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Most local elections get a lot of coverage somewhere but not on a scale that would cause readers in general to find them of interest. This isn't an election ticker. That said, ITN guidelines already state "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another.".  I have yet to see an article about a local election that is so fantastic that it overrides sourcing deficiencies, but if you do, or work on one to make it such, I would be happy to support it per existing guidelines. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here we go again WP:NOT. Is ITN a "bloodbath banner"? 4 of the 5 current items are murder and death. "local elections get a lot of coverage somewhere" what does that mean exactly? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's a collective voluntary agreement for this, I'm happy to participate. Only question: will there still be enough people to get nominations posted in a timely way? Banedon (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There won't be any such agreement, which is a drag, but if there were, I expect the box would get stale, some other admins would notice "WTF" and maybe participate. Maybe it would get 2 weeks old and no one would care and the suggestion to kill it would become valid and it could be replaced with the featured picture. Only way to know is to try. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Boo hoo. I didn't get my way one time, so now I want to shut the whole thing down.  Oppose.  -- Jayron 32 00:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ITNC history is available to pursue to understand why most of us regulars have a good feeling of the "shape" of what stories may or may not be posted, and things we avoid. And WP:NOT is policy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is far different from a ticker and written for a very different audience, and there's only a few types of articles that we can get to encyclopedic quality on limited information, which are the type of stories that get into ITN. --M ASEM (t) 01:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're joking right? 12 years of history? 1000's of noms, you expect new comers to just peruse that wall of text? I've been off and on involved for what? 5 years now? Which is the only reason I have any idea how absurd the process is at ITN. I keep hearing about "Systemic bias" and "Editorial control" but none of the other MP features demand such nonsense. *shrugs* It's y'alls project. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe because I predate the Endless September but my mantra is to "lurk and learn". Enough stories and ITNC go by that one should be able to get a good picture of what's good and not after a few weeks. Unfortunately, and this is part of our systematic problem with news articles in general, younger editors want instant gratification and do not have patience to lurk and learn. --M ASEM (t) 02:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per Iridescent. ITN is an attempt to grab readers' attention and direct them to bolded links. The main page is effectively a censored version of Wikipedia where we "feature" all our "best" work because everything else is supposedly not something we want people to read (??). Somehow we actually presume to know what people should and should not read. I have long since stopped clicking on all bolded links on the main page for that reason. Remove ITN and everything else on the main page, just go back to the days when the main page was a big Wikipedia sign and a search box ala www.google.com. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Did it ever? I remember (and miss!) when the main page looked like this, but just a search link must've been before my time. —Cryptic 01:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I searched for it via Bing and found this, which is what I was referring to. Banedon (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's [//www.wikipedia.org www.wikipedia.org]. It still looks like that.  At least it doesn't seem to be pulling article summaries from undetectably.vandalize.me.com wikidata anymore. —Cryptic 02:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow and I was like, en.wikipedia.org redirects to the current main page and so does clicking on the Wikipedia logo on the top left hand of the screen ... I swear it didn't in the past. Banedon (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - All of this is contingent on the qualms and complaints of a few disgruntled editors that disagree with the consensus. If we shut down ITN for that reason, it follows that we would dismantle the rest of Wikipedia as well.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ITN displays a small portion at the front page, it displays/feature "encyclopedia" article, not news. DYK and OTD also questionable if we agree this suggestion. --Ant a n O 11:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It's certainly not much of a news source. I am not sure what purpose it's supposed to serve. Whiff of greatness (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN is not meant to be a news source; it is meant to motivate the improvement of articles and highlight subjects that are of interest to readers because they are in the news. To learn more about what ITN is, please see WP:ITN.  Perhaps you should learn what something is before commenting on it. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the ideal world, nominating something at ITN leads to more editors looking at the article and improving it. In practice, nominating something at ITN leads to people pointing fingers at you and saying "why haven't you improved it if you wanted it posted? are you being stupid / disruptive / etc?". I don't recall anyone ever saying "let's post this even though it's a stub / orange tagged so we can get more people to improve it", too. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not quite true at all. If you nominate something at ITN, many people pitch in and improve articles.  However, when a person makes demands that substandard articles be posted on the main page (as opposed to merely nominating them), it can draw a negative reaction.  The difference is whether you say "We must post this now because it's the most important thing ever!" and "Hey, here's an article about a recent topic, can y'all pitch in and help?"  -- Jayron 32 00:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll believe that if a stub / orange tagged article actually gets posted because the nominator said "Hey, here's an article about a recent topic, can y'all pitch in and help?". Banedon (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no recollection of a stub/orange tagged article ever making it to the main page. I suppose it may have happened once as a mistake, but I've been doing this for a good many years, and I've never seen it.  Can you indicate when a stub or orange tagged article was posted on the main page in that state?  -- Jayron 32 01:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why the idea that people pitch in to improve articles is bogus - it happens quite rarely, and much more often people just criticize others for not improving the article . I rest my case. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want something done, do it yourself. This is apt. There are certain editors who like to nominate things without ever lifting a finger. Then they complain. If you feel it's important, have at it. Don't complain when something isn't doing something they aren't required to do. You cannot force editors to edit FOR you. If no one edits an article, it clearly isn't all that important to them. LordAtlas (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference there is that there was a person who demanded an article be kept on the main page in a substandard state, but refused to do any work to help improve it. Again, there's a difference between making demands that articles be posted on the main page in a substandard state and asking for help in improving such an article.  Once a person has voted to post an article in the main page, or to keep an article, that presumes they've assessed the article and have found no problems with it.  If you are demanding an article be posted or kept on the main page, you've indicated it's good enough.  If the article isn't good enough, it should be removed (or not posted in the first place).  I'm not sure why that is difficult to understand.  Again, the difference is between demanding your way, and asking for help.  One gets you no help, one gets you lots of help.  Any person is free to take any tone they wish, but what you have there is posted an example of how to NOT get any help; by making demands of others.  If the person who voted keep in that example had not voted "keep" at all, and had instead posted a friendly request for help, with reasons why they couldn't do it themselves, it would have probably been fixed in short order.  So no, your example does not show what you think it does.  (post EC note), also LordAtlas's advice is good... -- Jayron 32 01:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's why I maintain that 331dot's romantic idea that posting nominations gets people to improve it does not hold in practice. If it did we would actually post subpar articles so even more people will notice it and can improve it. Instead people criticize the nominator for making the nomination. I have nothing more to say, and will not answer any further responses. Banedon (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, in practice it happens most of the time. When you cherry pick the one time where you didn't get your way, that's not data to support your thesis.  That's intellectual dishonesty.  -- Jayron 32 02:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's ok that you are too busy to edit things you are interested in. Don't expect others too. This "romantic" idea sure works when people are interested. It can't be helped that we don't all have such lofty standards. We can't all live in ivory towers. LordAtlas (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, Banedon, I know you have no interest in becoming a higher-quality person, but others may read this and should understand the right way to do things, and that your statements ARE demonstratedly false, despite your single data point, specifically cherry picked because it hurt your feelings. Here are some recent examples of articles that were initially opposed for being in a substandard state, but were improved after being nominated.  Kabul bombing (May 31), Jim Bunning to RD (May 29), Manchester Arena bombing (May 22), IPL final (May 21), Puerto Rican debt (May 5), Venezuelan protests to ongoing (May 5).  These are all examples from the past month of articles which were nominated in a substandard condition, were cleaned up by interested people, and then posted.  Your self-serving assertion that it doesn't happen, based on one time when where you weren't able to browbeat other people into doing work you wanted them to do, but could not be bothered to do yourself, is demonstratedly false.  When people ask nicely, it happens.  When people fix articles themselves that they themselves would like posted, it happens.  When people try to browbeat random passers-by into doing work they themselves don't want to, and THEN get all pissy when their demands aren't met, it doesn't get done.  See the difference?  Also, see how when you take ALL data, it paints a different picture than when you cherry pick specific examples just to make a point.  -- Jayron 32 02:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – ITN is very likely the most read/viewed fixture on the Main Page. Eliminating it would be like turning off our navigation lights on a foggy night on the Solent in, say, 1912. Sca (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Repurpose ITN
ITN's current purposes include statements such as "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events". I propose changing all four current purposes to:


 * 1) To highlight articles with recent developments for improvement

This is based on the idea that ITN blurbs, with high visibility, would also have more readers who can then pitch in to improve the article. With this purpose, the criteria for blurbs should also change: we would look for articles with encyclopedic value (i.e. the article is "worth improving"), there have been recent developments that can be added to the article, and there is room for improvement. Banedon (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose ITN doesn't need repurposing. It works as is. Leaving a selection metric of any article with "recent developments for improvement" is far far too broad an inclusion metric and would flood out any means of candidacy. This is probably more akin to DYK, which there at least there is selection criteria regarding the age and/or expansion of the article. --M ASEM  (t) 03:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is not DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing "In the news" to "Articles that were improved". We already have DYK(which has its own issues as I understand it). While nothing is perfect, ITN largely works as is.  I'm sorry that every visitor to ITN doesn't get their way on nominations but that isn't a reason to burn it down and start over.  It would have no end. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Where'd you get the idea that it is "articles that were improved"? I thought I worded the original proposal quite clearly to be that there is scope to improve the articles. E.g. in the current ITNC, 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis would be an article that can be improved, because there's space to do it (expand the background section, add a reactions section, etc). Under this proposal for this nomination we would look at"
 * Whether this article is worth improving. That is, given this and another random article on Wikipedia, should we improve this? (This would be a legacy of the significance criteria currently in place)
 * Were there recent developments that can be added to the article? (Since the section, after all, is titled "In The News", so there should be recent developments)
 * Is there scope for improving the article? That is, can more people editing the article actively help? One is tempted to say "yes" since more eyes are never bad, but there are also plenty of articles which are pretty static. For example, if an event happens, something is added to the article, and then nothing else happens that can be added, then the answer to this should be "no".
 * I don't understand DYK very well, but I am not seeing the comparison with DYK. Banedon (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm actually rather surprised you're opposing this, because you said a few days ago that ITN was meant to "motivate the improvement of articles" and this merely codifies that into formal policy (note that none of the current purposes of ITN aim to improve the article after posting). Banedon (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's one of the purposes, but it shouldn't be the only purpose. The article should be improved before posting, not after. Changing that is a drastic departure from the current intentions of ITN. I oppose such a change. I don't work on DYK as it has significant requirements but its purpose is more about motivating the improvement of articles(because they are only posted after an article is created or undergoes significant expansion) 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. ITN's stated purposes are important and are adequately fulfilled by ITN in its current state.
 * In terms of highlighting articles for improvement, the Main Page is reader-focussed not editor-focussed. Today's articles for improvement might be the WikiProject for you. --LukeSurlt c 09:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, arguably, everything on the front page is "reader-hoping-they-become-editor focused". The reason all sections of the main page have quality metrics is to make sure the article is in a stable enough state that a reader wishing to add something can fumble around and see how to do it by example, allowing them to become editors. But the purpose of the main page is not primarily to feature articles that need improvement, as this proposal suggests. --M ASEM (t) 13:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nominations getting closed within just a few hours or minutes
Here my nomination for a blurb for The United Nations Ocean Conference was closed under 4 hours. This is way too short. The only participants were some specific usual ones of ITN-first-responders and many others were not give the chance to participate.

I raised some concerns about potential / perceived bias in that discussion as well as addressed some points made in a new nomination for Ongoing here, where I also explicitly asked to leave it open longer and which was closed by User:Stormy clouds after just minutes of public discussion.

This is not fair or appropriate and does not allow for a honest, in-depth, unbiased, open-minded, proper discussion about this very important nomination.

Could respective users (ie admins) please intervene? For instance it would be nice if the latter nomination could be reopened or/and if we could establish a minimum amount of time nominations are guaranteed open debate.

--Fixuture (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the one pushing POV. You get told "no" then try a different venue. You are canvassing. Your view of bias is that it exists solely when others disagree with you. Any further activities like this risk you being banned from participating at all. LordAtlas (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I couldn't properly bring my case as it was closed very quickly and as imo there is a possibility of bias of the specific ITN's first-responders. And I was told no for the blurb only. I don't see how I'm canvassing. I'm not sure it is bias but I consider the possibility. As said: giving the nomination no time and its participants being constrained to a tiny group of specific first-responders could mean that it was biased. I'm not sure what exactly the problem with leaving the discussion open or a new nomination should be? Are there pages with policies that prohibit either? I fear this very important issue might not receive the proper open-minded approach and in-depth discussion it deserves - maybe don't be so quick? --Fixuture (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If there was no prospect of the nomination getting consensus, there was every reason to close it. No one expressed support for it other than you, to be posted at this time. I believe most comments there suggested that could change if something happens at the conference. I'm sorry that you are disappointed in the result. What you consider "very important" isn't necessarily what others do and is not a reason to reopen the discussion. If someone wishes to support it in good faith, they are free to do so and reopen the discussion. Arbitrary minimum discussion times are something of a perennial proposal here, but haven't gained consensus as there is often little reason to artificially extend a discussion when the result is clear(among other reasons). 331dot (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Really LordAtlas, you should read WP:AGF. This discussion is clearly not canvassing (it's treating something other than the subject of the original nomination) and threatening Fixuture with a ban - something I'm extremely skeptical will get consensus if attempted - is not helpful. Banedon (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Should I specify a topic ban. I can't assume good faith as they've made it clear they won't stop. They intend to use Wikipedia to push their POV. LordAtlas (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm of opinion that the nomination, even if left to run its course, probably would not have succeeded anyway. The reasons given to oppose the original nomination, such as Iridescent's assertion that there are lots of these UN conferences, would also apply to an ongoing nomination. Furthermore, even if more people commented, going from "consensus against" to "consensus for" would be quite a stretch; "no consensus" is more likely but that would still lead to the nomination not being posted. Stormy Clouds must have come to the same conclusion which is why he invoked WP:SNOW. Still, I feel like nominations could be left open longer since there really is nothing to lose. We had suggestions that all nominations be left open for 24 hours in the past, but they never gained consensus. Banedon (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Include link to WP:ITN in template
I know this has come up before, I forget the reason it was shot down last. Here's my pitch: When ongoing is empty, it occupies a whole line in the template for nothing. Why not include something like Nominate a story in the same line. If there are enough ongoing items to bump it, fine, bump it. The idea is to make the ITN process a little more approachable. DYK has a link to Template_talk:Did_you_know and TFA has a link to WP:FA so it wouldn't be totally out of place. I mean, make use of some unused whitespace and (hopefully) drive more participation! --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (obviously?) as nominator --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good idea. Especially as it would be good to increase participants / participation. However as of right now I consider it rather useless as stories are almost impossible to get featured even if it's empty etc (see section above) with only very few, select exceptions. --Fixuture (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment in the ideal world I think it's a good idea. In the real world though, I'm not so sure, since ongoing nominations by many first-time ITN readers tend to elicit some very hostile reactions. Do we actually want people who don't usually read ITN showing up to nominate stuff like Apple Worldwide Developers Conference for ongoing? Unless the nominators are surprisingly magnanimous, all that's going to happen is bad blood (see above section and the nominations for example). Banedon (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Once people are at the portal, I hope they'll look at the ITN process and participate, be it for ongoing or a death or any other nom. Some people won't enjoy the process, but some might, and maybe there will be more overall participation. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. What about displaying "nominate a story" elsewhere for Wikipedia editors only? There could also be related approaches such as displaying it on the main page module but only for logged-in editors with e.g. over 100 edits and with us establishing more specific and new noninclusion criteria (e.g. corporate events). I think there is a real problem with: a) too few people knowing and participating at ITN b) a very small, old-established group of editors deciding over very important things and − associated with that − growing undynamic/unprogressive/sterile/inappropriately restraint/conservatism. I think CosmicAdventure's suggestion points towards the direction of or at least stimulates ways to solve/mitigate these issues. --Fixuture (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] On Apologies, Bias and Climate Change

 * NB - As the user in question appears to still harbour resentment and dissatisfaction as per comments above, and still feels that there is systematic bias against him, I am posting here as well as on talk page. If this is outside of standard procedure (it likely is, but I'm unsure), feel free to delete in its entirety. This amounts to my earnest effort to calm tensions here. Setting this spat aside would enable us all to persevere and keep enhancing ITN via general consensus.

First and foremost, allow me to preface this by acknowledging that I am a novice editor. You have several thousand more edits than I, and have made a far more substantial impact on this encyclopedia. I am a new editor who aspires to your level on the site, and so have immense respect for you.

I wish to formally apologise for closing the discussion on your nomination at In the News, as my doing-so appears to have disturbed and perturbed you. There is an argument to be made that I jumped the gun a shade in this action, and if you feel that it was unwarranted, I sincerely apologise. I was merely following procedure, and shutting down an unpopular suggestion in line with the rules of the forum.

You have repeatedly stated that there is systematic bias in the way things are dealt with in ITN, and seem to want change. While this is not a viewpoint which I share (I feel the status quo is the optimal manner of handling such a forum), I can understand your perspective. You are clearly passionate about climate change and stewardship of the environment, and I commend you for this passion. I myself endorse the idea that actions on ocean pollution are important, and the walls of my home are adorned with the Pale Blue Dot which you embedded in this article and the transcript of the Carl Sagan speech about said image.

I cannot speak for the intentions of the other editors, but I for one can comfortably state that I harbour no intentional bias against climate change and the topics therein, and I feel that they should be broadcast as loudly and widely as possible. None of my actions were made in a deliberate effort to silence you or your opinions on climate change. Nonetheless, a procedural UN conference does not warrant ITN attention, as it does not adhere to the (strict) qualifications set out for candidates. I opposed and closed on the grounds, established in WP:SNOW, that the item was lacking consensus and didn't have a chance of posting in ITN. It was not done as a power-grab, or consolidation of control, or deliberate bias against climate change. I was merely exercising my duty as an editor, a role I hope you can understand.

I hope that this message will help smooth what has been a terse and somewhat tense dialogue. We are all seeking to advance this communal project and construct a rigid and reliable online encyclopedia - we are all on the same side. I merely strive to dissuade your fears that there is a unit on ITN seeking to suppress others like yourself via bias, as this is not an accurate assessment of my contributions to the project, and I don't believe it reflects fairly upon the other editors who you have called out. I hope that this issue, to indulge in a horrible ocean-related pun, will pacify itself.

Sincerest apologies and regards. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You (Fixuture) also appear to be manufacturing a conspiracy theory of your own that there is a US-based group who dominate ITN and that said group is out to get you. The editors you claim constitute this cabal (The Rambling Man, Masem, Iridescent, 331dot, WaltCip and Sca) are certainly not all US-based—as you could have found out with minimal effort—and I at least have virtually no involvement with the main page other than trying to keep the worst of the inappropriate content out of it and periodically lobbying for ITN, DYK and TFA to be removed from the main page altogether as timesinks which don't justify the amount of time they consume. (I can't speak for the others, but I'm fairly certain that at the very least TRM would also fall into this group.)
 * You seem to be working under a misapprehension as to what the purpose of ITN is; it is not a mechanism by which Wikipedians can draw attention to topics that they personally consider important, but to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest (my emphasis). The fact that this routine conference is taking place is clearly not "of wide interest"; regardless of how important you consider it to be, it's receiving virtually no coverage other than routine announcements that it's taking place, and since the governments of most English-speaking countries (where en-wiki's readers are primarily based) are either ignoring it altogether or just sending a token delegation of minor diplomats, it's very unlikely that there are any circumstances in which it will receive wide coverage.
 * You complain that ITN covers sporting events while disregarding this conference, but I can assure you that of the sporting events listed in WP:ITN/R, if one were to go out in the street and ask which events people were aware of, even where I live in a country with absolutely no interest in (for instance) basketball, more people could name the winners of the NBA than would even be aware this conference is taking place. You may not consider that how the world should be, but it's Wikipedia's job to cater to the existing interests of its readers, not to try to proselytise them into changing their interests. If you want to promote a particular cause unconstrained by NPOV, Wikia is thataways. &#8209; Iridescent 16:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (note, I'm in the US, but I'm well aware of the excessive weight of US news reporting). --M ASEM (t) 16:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You complain that ITN covers sporting events while disregarding this conference, but I can assure you that of the sporting events listed in WP:ITN/R, if one were to go out in the street and ask which events people were aware of, even where I live in a country with absolutely no interest in (for instance) basketball, more people could name the winners of the NBA than would even be aware this conference is taking place. You may not consider that how the world should be, but it's Wikipedia's job to cater to the existing interests of its readers, not to try to proselytise them into changing their interests. If you want to promote a particular cause unconstrained by NPOV, Wikia is thataways. &#8209; Iridescent 16:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (note, I'm in the US, but I'm well aware of the excessive weight of US news reporting). --M ASEM (t) 16:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (note, I'm in the US, but I'm well aware of the excessive weight of US news reporting). --M ASEM (t) 16:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary Additions to Ongoing
Just now, the "Marawi crisis" article was posted to Ongoing without a nomination or discussion at ITNC. Presumably, this was done because the blurb for this article rolled off ITN upon posting of the newest blurb (which incidentally might have some relation to the Marawi crisis). When I asked about this in relation to a different article at ERRORS, I was told that doing this is up to the discretion of admins. Flatly, I think such a procedure is contrary to the spirit of consensus and ripe for BIAS, RGW, UNDUE and a host of others. Ongoing is a privileged position on the frontpage, because unlike blurbs, it does not roll off when new things are posted, and unlike the entire rest of the front page, it does not clear every day. Indeed, it and RD are the only parts of the frontpage that that do not automatically change. It takes active editor action to remove something from Ongoing, which can be thwarted by a few !votes. I should know, because I finally got Battle of Mosul removed from Ongoing MONTHS after it had ceased to be a salient topic in the news and substantial updates slowed. In this case, I highly doubt that a nomination for Marawi crisis would pass an Ongoing nomination, not least because the article is getting murdered for copyvio right now.

But on the general principle, I would like established guideline for posting to Ongoing. Perhaps a two-speed system: posted by nomination; posted on ITN rolloff if ITNC nomination was 100% support with at least 7 !votes. Arbitrarily posting to Ongoing is the least good way to go about this, though.128.214.69.207 (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This really would be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Anyone can nominate a story for removal from ongoing at any time. If people agree that it is no longer ongoing it will be removed. Just because consensus disagreed with you regarding the Battle of Mosul does not mean that the system is broken. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Requiring Ongoing entries to go through ITNC isn't any more bureaucratic than what we demand of every other blurb and RD.128.214.163.199 (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It already went through ITNC. ITNC is for deciding if an article is of suitable quality for the main page.  Once it is already on the main page, minor organizational issues such as this are left to admins because it's already been vetted by the community for quality.  If you would like to see an ongoing item removed because you have specific quality concerns, WP:ITNC is the standard venue for that, so long as you have a good reason.  "I'm sad because I didn't get to vote" is not a reason related to the quality of the article, please note... -- Jayron 32 11:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If that were the case, then why have separate nomination routes for RD and blurbs? By that logic, shouldn't admins use their discretion as to whether a BLP should go to RD or the ticker, instead of trying to form consensus at ITNC?  I don't think the Marawi article is up to scratch, that's true (just look at the revision history), but more than that I suspect that this is yet another open-ended event that gets added to Ongoing without consensus and will linger on there for far too long.  Anyone can nominate an item for Ongoing at any time, why not do so?128.214.163.199 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. RD items and blurbs also go through discussions of quality before putting them in the most page.  The Malawi item was also discussed and vetted as well.  There has been no difference, despite your assertion.  Nothing appears on the main page before the community has had time to review the quality of the article.  I don't know why to believe they haven't been.-- Jayron 32 19:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you disagree that the Malawi article should be at ongoing, then nominate it for removal. Complaining about it here will not achieve anything. If you want to discuss whether the system needs changing then you need to present arguments other than "I think these two decisions were wrong". I'm not sure how your comments related to nominations for RD/blurbs are relevant to moving an item to ongoing after it has been a blurb? Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't read the opening paragraph in this section: Ongoing is a highly privileged section on the frontpage, moreso than ITN blurbs; so items posted there should undergo an appropriately higher level of scrutiny; thus, moving articles from the ITN ticker to Ongoing circumvents this requirement of scrutiny. My proposal is to require a nomination for articles to be posted to Ongoing, so that they can have a level of scrutiny consummate to their position on the frontpage.128.214.163.199 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think ongoing items are "highly privileged"? All articles on the main page are privileged above all others that are not, and of the ITN items it seems to me that the most significant item is the one with the picture, followed by the other blurbs, then ongoing and RD about equal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The pictured one usually simply is the most recent one if there is a decent picture. And that can change in a matter of days, or hours. Mind i do not agree with the proposal but just objectivly the ongoing items are "highly privileged" as they appear on the main page longer than ANYTHING else. RD is there for a week at most, ITN entries can vary wildly but on average are probably not up there that long either. DYK is daily, and horrible each day, as is OTD, TFA and everything else. So just from the duration of the exposure, ongoing items of ITN are unrivaled by a mile of anything else on the mainpage by duration. Not that they really are that prominent or clickbaity in itself, but still. Sorry for the unsolicited input anyway 91.49.86.15 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Current policy says "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis" (emphasis mine) so it's fine to add it to Ongoing without discussion. Question is whether we want to have the discussion before adding it. I'm not convinced we should, because it would mean that every time we post a new blurb, we must have a discussion on whether or not to roll the previous one on to Ongoing. That seems quite slow to me for no good reason. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's already been removed anyway.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As the OP of this section, I'll invite an admin to close this if warranted. I'm in the minority on this point. I just ask that admins who want to rollover a blurb to ongoing to ask themselves, "would this article pass an Ongoing nomination?"128.214.163.159 (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Upcoming potential new nomination of United Nations Ocean Conference
So I nominated United Nations Ocean Conference for the ITN section as a blurb which was closed rather quickly and opposed by the participants it gathered until closure. I then created a new nomination for Ongoing where I also addressed arguments made in the earlier discussion and made some further points, also asking for some more discussion time. That one was closed too and participants in the discussion reacted rather negatively on it despite my stated rationale for it.

I later created a talk page discussion where I intended to discuss the closures which I perceived to have taken place too early and sort things out including potentially discussing potential changes to ITN in general. It was closed early too and I can live with that especially as I could discuss concerns and suggest potential changes to ITN separately at another place. After closure Vanamonde advised me to "find something else to do" which I won't as I consider this highly important and hence worth my time and effort.

In that discussion I was threatened with a ban without citing a policy that I had broken. Hence before any further steps from my side I want to make sure that we understand each other, that I won't violate any policy and that no ban or anything alike will occur. Note that this is taking my time and effort and I sincerely try to improve Wikipedia.

-

So now the reason for why I'm making this talk page entry: I'd like to make a new nomination as a blurb for when the conference has ended. In the 1st discussion Sca stated "Wake me up when it's over." and 331dot stated "That would change if something of note occurs there, such as a notable agreement or other change in policy.". The conference is approaching its end. Also something has come out of it already: over "800 voluntary commitments" for action − most on managing protected areas − have been made, Indonesia published its Vessel Monitoring System platform and very notably delegates from China, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines" made a promise to work to keep plastic out of the oceans among other things. Furthermore by now it also garnered more coverage by US- and UK-based media: BBC, Washington Post, "2, "3, CNN, "2, CNBC, SkyNews, ABC News and Reuters are among those covering it.

This talk page entry is not the nomination itself (please keep any arguments about whether or not to feature it to yourself until it is created) but is meant to clear things up and to secure me from bans or anything alike if I create the new nomination and this time people have no reason for early closure. Please assume good faith, stay calm and if you have any concerns name them here before the nomination so we can sort things out.

--Fixuture (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there's nothing wrong with making a nomination (and those people who object should read WP:AGF again). After all, much of the objection was because "nothing has happened". The question now changes to whether or not these 800 voluntary commitments is sufficiently significant to warrant posting, and that's something that needs to be discussed in a nomination. Whether or not the nomination passes, though, is a different matter. If you like, I can make the nomination for you. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would love if somebody else could get involved for the nomination. Much more has happened now - I invite you to read the updated article. Furthermore it also gained significantly more press coverage (also in the US & UK; see the References section) etc. However I'd like to ask you to please ping me before you nominate when I'm online again. If you don't like to nominate or aren't online then I will create it. Thank you! --Fixuture (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'm online now. Could you post it now (or within the next hour/s) please? --Fixuture (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with making a new nomination as such. There is a problem with not being able to accept consensus, and not being able to let things go. I cannot stop you from creating a new nomination. But, if and when a person votes "Oppose", you badger them with multiple lengthy replies insisting that they are wrong; or, if and when your nomination is unsuccessful, you open another just like it or post lengthy rants about how there's a conspiracy against the content you wrote, that is likely to be considered battleground behavior, and will probably result in some form of sanctions against you. Please keep this in mind. Vanamonde (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. I don't agree with some things you said but would just like to note the following:
 * I'm allowed to argue (back-and-forth) on Wikipedia and will use this right. You may perceive some of these arguments as an inappropriate "insistment that you/others are wrong" but those are simply arguments and a healthy debate. You can choose to address my points, dismiss them or ignore them but you can't prevent me from making my points.
 * Per WP:DEM:
 * Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee). Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.
 * And per e.g. WP:AADD which is about argumentation in deletion debates:
 * Some of the infirm arguments covered are those that are irrelevant or at best side issues, do not address the merits of the reason to keep or delete, are based in anecdote rather than evidence, engage in classic logical fallacies and more
 * Also proper, calm and honest discussion requires some time and hence I also ask for no early closure (anything under 3h definitely is very early closure).
 * Furthermore WP:NOTBATTLE says:
 * Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear
 * It does not prohibit (back-and-forth) argumentation.
 * I will keep this in mind and am pretty confident that I won't break any policy and/or engage in bad behaviour.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will keep this in mind and am pretty confident that I won't break any policy and/or engage in bad behaviour.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * When thinking about making a nomination you need to ask yourself some very simple qustions:
 * Has this been nominated before?
 * If yes, and it was rejected, it will be rejected again, possibly speedily, unless you explain (explicitly and succinctly) what has changed since the previous nomination. Even if things have changed that is not a guarantee of posting.
 * If yes, and it was posted, the nomination will be speedily closed unless you explain (explicitly and succinctly) why it should be posted again.
 * If no, then there is a supplementary question:
 * Has something similar to this been nominated recently? [the more similar something is the longer time span "recently" refers to]
 * If yes, and it was rejected, this nomination will probably be rejected unless you explain (explicitly and succinctly) what is different and/or what has changed.
 * If yes, and it was posted, then go ahead with the nomination - it stands a good chance of being posted if the article quality is good enough (but note it is not a guarantee it will be posted - precedent is not binding).
 * If no, then go ahead with the nomination.
 * If you genuinely don't know the answer to either question, then go ahead with the nomination but it might be speedily closed if it turns out it is a duplicate.
 * Above all, there is no guarantee that anything will be posted (even ITN/R items are subject to news coverage and article quality). If someone opposes your nomination, don't badger them, remain civil and keep responses brief. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay and good points.
 * Please see the relevant paragraph beneath the line in the upper post. Things have changed now. Most notably there has been significantly more news coverage and much more (concerning steps & committments) has occured there now.
 * I invited Banedon to create the nomination instead of me if he likes to but asked him to ping/wait so that in the case the he doesn't make a good case for its inclusion/nomination I can deliver rationale subsequently.
 * Alright. But I certainly reserve the right to make arguments against whatever arguments they might bring up. They can choose to address my points, dismiss them or ignore them. I will try to make these points as calm, objective, on-point and short as possible. The main importance/relevance of this right for argumentation/debate is not (only) in persuading other participants or in getting persuaded by them but in giving other participants more insight to make up their own mind on the merit of other participants' points.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. But I certainly reserve the right to make arguments against whatever arguments they might bring up. They can choose to address my points, dismiss them or ignore them. I will try to make these points as calm, objective, on-point and short as possible. The main importance/relevance of this right for argumentation/debate is not (only) in persuading other participants or in getting persuaded by them but in giving other participants more insight to make up their own mind on the merit of other participants' points.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --Fixuture (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Terror attack thresholds
There seems to be many people who feel that the terror attack in the UK posted recently was "not newsworthy".

Does anyone have a proposal for a measurable threshold that can be used for including terror attacks in this feature? Power~enwiki (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, nor should we. As soon as you put in body counts or an equivalent metric, that games the system.
 * What I think may that opposed the last attack in the UK (the anti-Muslim one) is that it occurred shortly after 3 major attacks that had ties to Islamic terror. Out of that context, I would agree with those that disagreed the event wasn't the type we post, but in context of current events, with the country still on heightened security, the event was clearly notable despite the lack of any deaths. --M ASEM (t) 02:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CREEP. We can't write all sorts of limitations or thresholds on events that get nominated. If we do it for terrorism we will need to do it for everything. That's why we discuss and judge each event on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The threshold should be "Well respected sources are treating it as a major story", identical to every thing else we post. No other standard is needed.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't argued that the 2017 Finsbury Park attack was less important because of who the perp & victims were - nor because it came soon after other terror attacks. It was because the death toll was much lower and because it caused much less disruption and damage. If rarity is an important factor, then the fact that vehicle-ramming attacks are no longer rare in Europe is another reason not to post less serious events of that type.
 * Even if we could agree on which sources are well-respected, it's still the case that they report many stories in depth which aren't that important - especially in summer when there are typically fewer important news stories. The media write what will bring them the most revenue, not what's most important. They value reality TV participants and talentless actors who are popular solely because they're good-looking much more than they value important scientists who've won major international awards. Jim Michael (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't need a threshold, that's why we have community discussion and trustworthy admins. We even posted a gun attack in the United States which featured zero deaths besides the perp himself, and although that received dubious consensus, most of our community trusted the posting admin sufficiently to not make a huge fuss over it. For some unknown reason, that wasn't the case for a terror attack with twice as many injuries and one connected fatality in the capital city of the United Kingdom, and lots of people who didn't get their way the first time requested the item be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TRM. We even posted a vehicular attack in Europe which featured zero deaths, and wasn't even targeting members of government in a politically motivated assassination attempt. Overall though, there is a silly sort of "if it bleeds it leads" mentality at ITN, with frequent opposes "no deaths" or "only 1 death" and fairly pointless incidents going up because of "significant deaths". I guess that's what the consensus wants. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would be very interested to see an example of a "pointless incident" where there were significant deaths. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit summary "this should be good" makes it obvious that you're just looking to make fun of me, but since you ask, the Grenfell Tower fire is a good example. "Fire hazard building catches fire, tragically people killed". It was in the news, and the article is very good, so I support posting it, but ultimately it has no "lasting impact" or "international significance" or any of the other nonsense usually used to tamp down stories. It's fairly safe to say that had the building been vacant when it burned, it wouldn't have gotten a blurb, much less ongoing. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that I initially opposed the Grenfell fire - prior to the confirmation of any deaths - that is a unique situation in that it is more like the result of a commercial airline crash which by law gets a detailed investigation. There has been a major review of the cause and spread of the fire that is going to be documented, there are likely going to be lawsuits if the investigation reveals the building fails fire codes, there's been the changeover in how emergency responses must be handled in cases like this, and/or there's a likelihood of new legislation about fire codes and emergency response. Fires do happen, deaths from fires happen, but most are truly accidental in buildings that otherwise meet all fire and safety codes, and that ends up just tragic rather than important, and we would not post those unless it was a loss of a notable person or of a valuable landmark/property. Grenfell is clearly different.  In time, the fire itself won't be that important, but the resulting changes in policy and law that will be. That's the type of thing we should try to be judging, and no, it's not always easy. --M ASEM  (t) 16:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats probable, and it won't be much of a story years from now when the royal commission or whatever concludes. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The death toll, cost of the damage and potential changes in the law in regard to flammable materials, firewalls etc. makes the Grenfell Tower fire one of the most important events of 2017. Saying 'if it had been empty' ignores the fact that (due to extremely high demand for housing) a tower block in London would only be empty if it had just been completed or was awaiting demolition.
 * The 2017 Congressional baseball shooting shouldn't have been posted.
 * Jim Michael (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I support posting both because they had good articles and were in the news. Everything else is a commentary on the editorializing at WP:ITN/C. 79 insignificant people died tragically in a known fire hazard building vs an armed attack on members of government from a major power and NATO ally. Really? You're going to call one "more important" than the other? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most people weren't aware that the tower had flammable cladding put on it. If it turns out that it was illegal, there could be a trial. Authorities in various places are finding out if the buildings which they're responsible for have such cladding on them. If the cladding is legal, it's likely to be outlawed. That makes it a historically important event.
 * An attack on members of a government in which the only death was the shooter isn't a historically important event. Jim Michael (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the discussion was that a politically motivated assassination attempt was indeed worthy of posting. If you feel it does not merit an article (As not historically significant) you are free to put it up for AfD. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it's not notable enough for an article. I'm saying that it's not important enough to have been posted to ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well your opinion was noted and the item was posted even though you didn't like it. Both times.  Although you didn't comment once "because consensus was very strongly in favour of posting" (which it wasn't).  That shouldn't stop you from commenting.  Still, nothing will change here, your comments are noted but consensus rules as do trustworthy admins.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Finsbury park related concerns
I'm a little concerned by some of the support rationales for this nomination, concerns I've felt before. For the record, I supported this nomination, because it was a significant event, and was in the news. That's really most of what we should be worrying about. However some folks are suggesting that a terrorist attack is somehow more noteworthy if it occurs in "the West"; that's problematic any way you look at it, because it's basically normalizing violence in other parts of the world. We often do not cover incidents of violence outside the west because there are no articles of sufficient quality; but suggesting that we shouldn't even want to cover those incidents, because violence is passe in some situations, is perpetuating our bias in coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree, because, for instance, a mass shooting in, say, Luxembourg would be significantly more newsworthy than a mass shooting in the United States for the same number of victims. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If a mass shooting should occur in Luxembourg, it is likely to attract far more news coverage than one in the US, true enough. But the fact is that we take incidents that receive a widely varying amount of coverage, and then make a binary choice for each; we post, or we don't. I'm okay, to an extent, with basing that binary choice purely on quantum of coverage. I'm not okay with basing the choice purely on news coverage in the US/UK media, and I'm certainly not okay with basing it on some editors being more upset over an incident in Europe or the US; which is what my post is about. Vanamonde (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's about whether people are more upset about it happening, it's more about the rarity.  And that's usually directly proportional to the news coverage.  Which is then proportional to the chances of it being posted at ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not quite my reading of some of those posts. In any case, that's my point. We shouldn't filter out violence from some parts of the world merely because it's common there. We cannot post every instance of suicide bombing in Kabul, or every killing in Colombia; but if we eliminate items that are common, we are unlikely to give said incidents the consideration they deserve. Vanamonde (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If one example of something that is common gets significant media attention outside the local area, especially if that coverage is qualitatively different in some way, then (if there is a decent article) it should be nominated for consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely why, unless an incident is so big that notability is not going to be in question, it's counterproductive to nominate to ITN before an article is ready. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We are being severely biased towards events in North America and Europe. We shouldn't post articles to ITN just because they are unusual or because they received a lot of media coverage. This event, along with the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting are nowhere near important enough to post. Much worse thing happen every day. The media love to sensationalise such events, but they're not important world events. Bogus arguments such as a type of event being rare (in that part of the world), receiving a lot of media coverage etc. are being used to post things that aren't worthy of ITN. Saying that the Finsbury Park attack is important enough to post because it happened near a mosque is ridiculous when we don't post attacks on mosques in the Middle East in which many people are killed. Jim Michael (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? You've made several categorical statements there, but you've not explained why you think these are "bogus earguments", that we shouldn't take location, rarity or amount of media coverage into account. Whether something is ITN-worthy or not is determined by consensus, not proclamation by one editor. If there are events that get nominated you don't think should be featured, then oppose the nomination with your reasons why. If there are events that you think we should be featuring then nominate them along with your reasons why - even ITN/R items don't get posted without a nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't think it was posted because it happened "near a mosque", I think it was posted because it featured a white European idiot crashing deliberately into a group of Muslims who were just leaving a mosque during Ramadan and then screaming about killing all Muslims. Did that happen in the Middle East?  And we have posted attacks at mosques in the Middle East, e.g. 2015 Kuwait mosque bombing.  Having said that, a quick look at the general quality of the articles at Category:Attacks on Shiite mosques would give some more insight as to why they're seldom posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is, some things are routine in parts of the world. Tropical storms kill 100's in developing countries regularly, it's much rarer in a developed country. Vehicular terrorism is so out of control in Europe that its boring and routine (and will continue until the EU passes meaningful vehicle control laws). Personally I support any story which has a decent update and is in the news, regardless of the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, or where it took place, or whatever. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It won't take long to catch on in the US. Most things are invented in Europe and then exported so let's see how America deals with someone driving down Hollywood Boulevard, mounting the sidewalk, and smashing up a few dozen tourists.  After all, didn't Kurgan already do that kind of thing in 1986?  Who wants to live forever anyway?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't more notable or important just because the perpetrator in this case is white. The large majority of attacks on mosques in the Middle East are carried out by Muslims, so of course they're not going to say they want to kill all Muslims.
 * In regard to natural disasters, we shouldn't post those which are minor in world terms just because they're rare in the part of the world in which they occur. Jim Michael (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course we should. If the UK was struck by a fatal earthquake or tsunami, it would be global news, and we'd post it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not if there were only a few deaths and the damage and disruption were relatively minor (by world standards). Jim Michael (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. But isn't that the joy of Wikipedia?!  By "world standards", we won't post a single terrorist attack with fewer than 2,996 fatalities.   By "world standards", we won't post a single hurricane unless it kills more than 12,000 people.  Or anything you consider to be "relatively minor" compared to those... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous, because the vast majority have death tolls much lower than that. No-one would deny that the 2004 Madrid train bombings or the 7 July 2005 London bombings were major terror attacks of historical, international importance. Jim Michael (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Perp deaths included in overall death tolls
Question: in light of the recent attacks in the UK, especially last night were three terrorists killed at least seven people, our blurbs which normally include the number "killed" or who "died in the attack". Should that number include the perpertrators of such acts, or should they be handled separately in the blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For sake of brevity of an ITN blurb, I would leave them out. If someone told me "x people" died in an attack, I'm going to default assume those are victims and not any attacker. And since we nearly always have "at least X..." that leaves room that the attackers' death toll to be added on without stating that exactly. --M ASEM (t) 10:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Next time is happens, work it in as alt blurb and see if it fits. Maybe leave out the injured count. I don't know how to make it not look childish, but something like "11 people, including 3 attackers are killed in a ramming attack ....". Masem is right though, most news media seems to exclude the attackers when reporting death toll. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The news headlines are generally along the lines of "X people killed by [attacker/gunman/terrorist]". In either case, I think ethically that the attackers are never considered victims of a crime (in the sense of number of dead/wounded). This is a pretty universal notion and I see no reason for us to deviate from it. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Suicide attackers who kill themselves you can usually say are not victims, or at least not in the same way as innocent parties killed are. People who are killed by their own devices they didn't intend to get killed by is less clear cut (this happened to a few IRA bombers for example), particularly if it isn't clear what their intentions were in that regard, and things like suicide by cop are even harder. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To my ear, "Died in the attack" is a preliminary phrase when the killers and victims have not been positively delineated. If clarity exists, "died" is an inappropriate term for the victims; we should say they were "killed." In that context, the perps would clearly not be counted. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perpetrators are often killed by security personnel. Occasionally they kill themselves. Either way, they are also killed as part of the same incident. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest we take a page from MOS:GENDERID and restructure the sentence:
 * Call the dead something else: "A bombing at the Greene theater kills 8 concertgoers"
 * Use a separate clause to note the attackers fate: "A man wielding a knife mortally wounded 3 before police shot and killed him"
 * Use a vague term like "scores" or "several" (cautiously, this could be insensitive)GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some good suggestions. But I recall a recent discussion over use of the phrase "about a dozen". Probably better to be very cautious if the numbers are unclear. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Userbox for WP:ITN/Candidates
I have created a userbox for those who frequent this page and contribute to the candidates list and the debates which they trigger. Just leaving it here in case anyone wants to use it. - Stormy clouds (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

highlighting delayed nominations
Sometimes events, particularly deaths, get nominated a couple of days after the event takes place (due to when they are announced) and so do not get much attention as they are already lower down the page. This is less than ideal, and so some way of highlighting these nominations would be useful. The existing [Attention needed] tag is one possibility, but I don't want to dilute that so I suggest allowing (but not requiring) anyone to place a [New] tag on any nomination added to a section that's more than about 2 days old (e.g. something nominated today in the section for the 18th or earlier) and for that to remain until the nomination has attracted comments from several editors or the nomination is about 24 hours old, whichever happens first. So as to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, rules lawyering, etc. all the times, how many editors count as "several", etc are intentionally not strictly defined. The only exception being that it should never appear in the current days section. The tag would be replaced by [Ready], [Closed], [Posted] or [Attention needed] if those are appropriate (i.e. "[New]" should not appear in combination with another tag). In all cases it may be added or removed by anyone who is not edit warring about it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a decent idea, why not. Vanamonde (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, provided that we only apply the [new] tag to articles which took place the day before yesterday (or earlier). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just post it on the day it was announced, and put a mention in the nom comments that the actually death was whatever days prior. If it happens often enough and people scream and complain enough, we can start another agonizing RFC. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we can just add [New], it's neat and doesn't require any real RFC or massive consensus since people are frequently posting [attention needed] or whatever. This, at least, has purpose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to TRM's comments, the day something happened/is announced is not necessarily the same day it is nominated here (for a variety of reasons). There was consensus (iirc) in a discussion around the time of last year's RD RFC that where a death is not announced until a significant time after the event that a nomination could be made in the section for the day of the announcement. "Significant" was not defined, but 4-5 days difference would be my personal minimum except in cases where a blurb is guaranteed (e.g. incumbent head of state) and even then I'd only do it for less than 3 days if it would already be stale. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's up to y'all, but adding a [new] tag to a section heading 3 days down the list probably won't do much, and at what point is something new no longer new? The problem you describe is real, nominating on the announcement date instead of the event date is probably fine. My two cents anyway. PS I'm not looking for an RFC, I doubt it'd ever come to that. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted initially, something is no longer new when it is 24ish hours old, it has attracted comments from several people or it has another status (posted, closed, attention needed, etc), whichever happens first. This isn't just for recent deaths, but any event nominated a couple of days or more after it happened, not all of which are or can be announced. If it doesn't work, then it's not cost us anything other than 5 extra characters in some headers, but given that things like [Ready] and [Attention needed] work I think this will too. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

T:ITNBOX
FYI, I have added Main Page/Commons media protection to T:ITNBOX, which I hope will help me (and others!) find it more easily when needing to protect a main-page image. BencherliteTalk 11:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Two more topics on terrorism

 * 1. Use of the term "terrorism" - suggested guideline/policy that use of terrorism/terrorist in blurbs to describe an event should reflect our own standards and not sources (even RS), who tend to throw it around cavalierly. My chief objection in this regard is subterfuge-based attacks against armed forces actively engaged against the terrorist group, e.g. ISIS fighter joins Iraqi regular Army to get access, then engages in suicide-attack.
 * 2. Discussion of the attackers ethos - Five Ws say we have to discuss who did it and why, but we must acknowledge that a chief goal of terrorism is dissemination of the ideology. I understand the WP:RGW argument against this, but I think it would be wise to omit the attacker's group name or ethos (i.e. Islamist) from the blurb. This would not impact clarity, would benefit brevity, and would help (YES) right a great wrong of journalists helping terrorist groups promote their brands. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We aren't here to right great wrongs; we describe events as reliable sources do. Who commits a terrorist attack(if we know) is certainly worthy of mention.  Dealing with terrorism is up to authorities and governments; we don't censor materials anywhere on Wikipedia because it might help some group.  331dot (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a point though on the first aspect. There's a legal definition of terrorism, which in most countries generally allows for harsher penalties and the like should someone be charged with that, and there's the media/politicians' use of the world generally used to rally public support against those that did the act and/or make them aware. ITN has not enough context to spell out which so we need to be careful. Granted, in several of the most recent cases, the officials investigating the case have treated the case as a potential terrorist act, which allows them to use powers not normally available to expedite the investigation process. I do agree that unless there's clear resolve from the authorities with access to such details that the event was definitely a terrorist act, we should avoid either saying something was a terrorist act or say it was a possible terrorist act. --M ASEM (t) 14:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but most(certainly not all) news outlets don't label something terrorism without some official word on the matter. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, sometime the official word that the press take this from is either being used because the police are treating the investigation as a terrorist act to afford them the needed powers (which doesn't necessarily mean it is a terrorist act), or its from a high-level official that has no part of the investigation directly that calls it as such, even though at an early stage they are not likely going to be privy to all details. We should keep in mind we're still in the age of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt and just as with other ITNs that we know are sensationalist news, reporting on a tragic event also gains that same level of sensationalism. That's generally why we should be very careful of rhetoric language in blurbs. --M ASEM (t) 14:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing I forget to mention above is that we generally do these two things already (again, speaking only about blurbs). Blurbs tend to be short and to the point, so we say "bomber" instead of ISIS-allied bomber." Terrorism, likewise, is an extraneous detail when "shot" or "stabbed" does the work.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian published a short piece on when they describe things as "terrorism"/people as "terrorists" today, which is worth a read . The subheading is good as a relevant summary, "Calling an event terrorism or a person a terrorist is not the sole preserve of the authorities, but professional journalists need to take care with these labels". Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that article makes the same mistake of ascribing certain characteristics to terrorism that are generally found but not necessary. It is not necessary that there be serious harm, the victims be innocent, nor the target symbolic. It technically needn't even be violent, per se. I would submit that (inclusively) terrorism is any act meant to drive observers to an illogical, emotional (i.e. "terrified") reaction in the consideration of the perpetrator's ethos/cause. It is this desire for influence that we reward so readily in service of WP:UNCENSORED. Articles (and blurbs, which is the topic at hand here) omit details in the service of clarity and brevity, and this is not called censorship. I only suggest that not giving terrorist what they want is as good a reason. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether we are "Giving terrorists what they want" or not is not something Wikipedia can consider as that's inherently a value judgement and NPOV forbids us from making those. Our job is to represent what reliable sources say, nothing else.
 * If reliable sources are agreed something is terrorism then we should call it terrorism.
 * If reliable sources are agreed something is not terrorism we should call it not terrorism.
 * If reliable sources are not saying either way, we should not say either way.
 * If reliable sources disagree we should assess the relative weight.
 * If almost all say terrorism we should call it terrorism.
 * If at least a significant minority say terrorism we should say "possible terrorism", "likely terrorism" (or something like that as appropriate).
 * If almost none say terrorism we should not say it is terrorism. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf, perfect. And if agreed, at last we can stop the "it's not terrorism" brigade when they entirely ignore reliable sources who all state "it's being treated as terrorism". You know who you are! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)
Nearly a quarter the way through the year now. This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. This may omit items that happen around this time of year but have yet a fixed date - for example, the 2017 Stanley Cup Finals in mid-June. Some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.


 * Recent deaths can be found at Deaths in 2017
 * Upcoming elections can be found at National electoral calendar 2017
 * Upcoming solar eclipses can be found at List of solar eclipses in the 21st century
 * Upcoming space launches may be found via an internet search
 * News stories can be found at Portal:Current events

For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The date of Albanian parliamentary election, 2017 is now 25 June, I've moved this in the above. --LukeSurlt c 10:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage
I have seen there is great debate over what is a notable legalisation of same-sex marriage and I would like to know if there are any set criteria for what is and what isn't, just to save time of anybody who is nominating any country. The biggest argument seems to be that it's happening so frequently that it isn't news any more. Ten whole countries (11 if you count the UK excluding Northern Ireland) have legalised same-sex marriage in the last five years.

Naturally, the first legalisation in Holland in 2001 was clearly notable. But after that, which ones are notable? As we've seen the first legalisation by referendum in Ireland, do we now have to wait until an Orthodox or Islamic country legalises it before it is notable again?

I'm not bitter that other countries haven't been posted by the way, I'm just asking. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no set criteria. Some people have commented with their personal criteria when supporting or opposing nominations, but I think at this point it's safe to say that a western-European EU member country legalising same-sex marriage will be extremely unlikely to get consensus for posting, and countries that meet only one of those are unlikely to get consensus.
 * I'd say that, in my opinion, only the following are worthy of nominating:
 * Russia
 * First and last country in a geopolitical region (e.g. Taiwan, which may have a vote on legalising this year).
 * Supra-national blocks (e.g. EU)
 * Any country where legalisation was strongly opposed in a recent, reputable national survey of popular opinion
 * Any country where the legalisation follows a referendum or similar initiated by citizens and opposed by the government.
 * Any country where it is the very first act by an incoming government.
 * Any country where the legalisation is part of a significantly broader package of rights.
 * I am not saying that these would all get posted, I don't even know if I would support them all, just that the discussion is probably worth having for these - in my opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For me it's a simple common sense moment. Germany are catching up to the rest of Western Europe.  Eastern Europe and other states are unlikely to ever make such a decision. Should they do so, we'll probably run it.  In the meantime, well done Deutschland, welcome to the club.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am personally content to review case-by-case without the implementation of any fixed rules. I don't see it as too strenuous a task. - Stormy clouds (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am horrified that the Germany one was not posted. But there was no consensus, so I'm just horrified alone in my little corner of the world.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of sympathy for those nominating these events. While many of us live in places where same-sex marriage has been possible for some years now, we should remember that such a step is still extremely controversial in countries where it hasn't happened yet, and so when it does happen it feels like a Really Big Thing in those countries.  That doesn't necessarily tip it over the line for ITN, but we should be careful to avoid the bias that arises from the feeling that this is all old hat because no-one debates it any more in my country.  In many (most?) parts of the world, this is still a very controversial subject and a question that is far from resolved.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Lions tour of New Zealand
The 2017 British and Irish Lions tour to New Zealand concludes on Sunday, with the victor of that match claiming the series. I was surprised to see that the tour was not listed on WP:ITNR given its historical significance and international attention (among rugby nations). I was just wondering if there has been a consensus decision about the tour in the past, or if a nomination about the result would fare as well as a snowball in hell. I would not like to clog up ITN/C with another nom which will be speedily closed like Cardinal Pell (sincerest apologies for that), and was wondering if there was procedure about this event. Or is it below the threshold of notability worldwide?

Any clarification/advice welcomed. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted in 2009 but no consensus in 2013, so who knows what will happen in 2017? BencherliteTalk 22:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly it's worth a nomination. Reading the 2013 discussion, I'd make it clear in the nomination comment that it is the culmination of a once in 4/12 year competitive series. Links to media coverage in a neutral coverage may help too. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would give it a go. It wouldn't be a snow close. And there's certainly no need to apologize for a good-faith nomination.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)