Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 62

Judging consensus for unpopular RDs
I noticed that the RD for Desh Bandhu Gupta went stale with only one comment of Support coming from TRM, who is a known adherent to referencing requirements. Meanwhile, other RDs have posted with just 2 supports. Consensus is in the eye of the beholder/admin, but I wonder if the absence of opposition should have been taken as consensus where support exists? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We need more eyes on ITNC. As a former admin, it's easy to see that the current corps are either busy doing other things, not interested in the main page, or just not aware of the usual backlog, which is most pressing when it comes to things that are "in the news".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't always have large blocks of time to spend on Wikipedia. I find assessing consensus and doing a quick check of the article to check there is nothing obvious that has been missed/has arisen since the last comment and posting (if appropriate) to take less time than fully assessing an article - particularly if the person is from a field I know little about, but I do look for [Attention needed] highlights when I do have time. While I'm not aware there is anything written down about what the minimum support needed is, my personal standard is at least two supports in addition to the nominator before I will consider posting. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Another one with limited time and also very limited internet speed & bandwidth; I tend to look for two supports from ITN regulars (one of whom might be the nominator) before I do a detailed look at the article, which often takes me 30 mins or more. A ready from an ITN regular who isn't the nominator is also helpful. I'm also more likely to check out RDs where I know a little of the subject area and so have an idea what might be problematic in an article covered by BLP policy and what sources are considered reliable for contentious statements. I rarely find I agree wholeheartedly with the supports -- there's usually something else that needs sourcing, editing, reorganising or expanding, only some of which I have interest/expertise/time enough to perform myself. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For RD items, it's probably safe to end the "un-involved admin" unwritten !rule, even if you're the nominator, since we got rid of all the "notability" discussion. I don't know if that would help though. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * An admin has to post, to avoid disruption of a template that affects the front page. A non-admin can certainly mark ready, though. --M ASEM (t) 15:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, but there is an (unwritten?) !rule that says admins who commented in the nom can't also post it. I'm saying for RD that's silly. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, if admins are worth their salt, they will have the balls to judge quality and post regardless. Bureaucratic shackles need not apply. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * While I see how editor comments on RD items are useful to admins, I would be in support of admins boldly adding RD items they deem adequate even if there had been no comments. --LukeSurlt c 18:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. In my opinion nothing should be posted to the main page without multiple sets of eyes in addition to the nominator, admins are just as human as non-admins and so we are just as likely to miss something and quality matters more than immediacy of posting (one way we differ from a news ticker). If something does not have at least two comments (indicating they have looked at the article) in addition to the nominator I will almost never post it. "Oppose", "fixed" [by third person], "posted" is fine if I agree that the problems identified have been fixed and I can't see any others. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Idea for new section (editor recruitment/retention)
What about a separate section section or subsection whose related purpose is to showcase ITN articles requesting editorial work? The goal would be to acknowledge things that are in the news before articles are ready for the current section, while simultaneously encouraging readers to become editors and work on those articles.

I often see people online quoting Wikipedia and getting the response stating Wikipedia is not a valid resource as a way to shut down the conversation. I've started replying to the latter comment that the commenter does not know how to use Wikipedia. Of course, we all crave for Wikipedia to present a professional image, but sometimes we get caught up in mimicking an old-style print encyclopedia, where articles have a final version that is the aim of all processes.

I think acknowledging the process of Wikipedia, of viewing its content as an updateable review with its sources being the ultimate destination for verifiable facts and with opportunities to challenge that which has not yet appropriately sourced, would be beneficial to the project as a whole and to its reputation. The small idea of mine of creating part of the main page to involve others in that discussion and to facilitate acknowledging news items that otherwise might sit on the shelf is one thing that has come out of this seemingly slight change of my viewpoint.

To be schmaltzy, one might say that Wikipedia is not a destination of perfection, but rather an ever-improving guide on one's journey to wider knowledge. And you, too, can bring that knowledge home. ... Okay, don't say that on the main page, but I think that gets across the attitude that I'm trying to reframe here. Articles that need work are being viewed as lacking, and there is truth in that, but they can also be engaging and be opportunities for people to try out editing Wikipedia.

Thank you for all your hard work on the main page. My real-life limitations might not let me come back here, so I thank anyone who can carry this ITN Needing Writer-Editors idea forward for me. —Geekdiva (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The main page is for showing the best work on Wikipedia, not what needs work- which there is a page for. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A more realistic view is that the main page is for articles that manage to meet the criteria for each section. Templates ITN note or ITN nom can be used on nominated article talk pages and In the news/Candidates is already a good place to highlight articles that need work for ITN. Whether that needs emphasising further with a direct link from the main page is something to consider. Fuebaey (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

ITN needs to be fixed or deleted
For me the date is July 8, 2017. The main page of Wikipedia is featuring news items, the most recent of which is a June 27 cyberattack on Ukraine. Meanwhile, North Korea has successfully launched an ICBM, and you won't cover it. The U.S. and Russia have arranged a ceasefire in Syria and you aren't talking about it. The UN came up with some kind of treaty banning nuclear weapons and you're still arguing over it. CERN has observed a new kind of Xi baryon and nobody knows about it, let alone is developing the article.

Now I know it's annoying when outsiders come into a Wikipedia subforum and start saying it's useless - they do that to us at the Refdesk too often. But the thing that makes this different to me is: ITN is on the Main Page. When people look at Wikipedia and see a "news" story from two weeks ago, the message it sends is that this is an abandoned, distressed, or malfunctioning site. People aren't going to volunteer for a malfunctioning site, and they're not going to donate to an abandoned site! So this affects everyone.

There seems to be a lot of Wikipolitics about concealing or destroying news. A good article about a current event is way more likely to end up at AfD than ITN because it is newsworthy and interesting. So I don't know if you can manage this -- but if you can, then make a solid decision that No Matter What, you get a fresh news article up every few days. There is never really a lack of news -- only an excess of people who live to say No. The alternative is that we have to get rid of ITN altogether. Wnt (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, a troubled place indeed. I think the North Korean rocket test was a good recent example. I have to agree there was no consensus for that one, so fair enough. But we seemed to have arguments made for political reasons, a support vote being trolled away by an unknown drive-by IP and a new editor account created just to vote oppose? If I'd ever donated I'd want a refund. But, there again, as many have asked before, why should an encyclopedia have to try and look like a newspaper? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem here is the lack of article development, or perhaps the skew in our article development. Terrorist attacks, particularly in the West, have articles created very quickly. Sports events, likewise. Other things, though, are much slower to see activity. As an admin, I'd like to post recent and relevant stuff from all over the globe; but all too often our hands are tied by what's nominated here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The main benefit for the encyclopedia. as far as I can see, is that articles nominated for ITN get more scrutiny from those editors who are keen to see them posted, particularly in terms of sourcing. But this happens whether they are eventually posted or not. This seems to be particularly true for Recent Death nominations, where the subject article may have lain neglected for many years. A constant regular series of opposes, however, simply reminding folks of a lack of sources, with evidently no intention to make even a single improvement, can leave other editors feeling somewhat demoralised and that they may be wasting their effort for the uncertain sake of the front page. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we have no deadline to get current event articles in place. Especially in the current media that focuses on sensationalist news (look how much to-do they are going over that viral CNN thing) rather than objectivity, ITN needs to focus more on quality of article development and stories that actually reflect key news items that have been written up by editors in a quality manner. --M ASEM (t) 12:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true, But if editors put all (or most) of their efforts into "healthy and informed discussion" on the candidate page, that is perceived by passing readers and other fellow editors alike, as "indecorous squabbling", and this results in a "top news item" that's ten days old, I'm not sure this benefits the encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If your viewpoint is the majority, then there is a simple fix: let's put all the ITN pages for deletion. If Wikipedia is not a newspaper, then obviously we should not have an "in the news" section on our front page.  Having it is an option, not having it is an option - having it but saying it has to be incomplete and out of date because we shouldn't have it is NOT an option. Wnt (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The point of being not a newspaper is that ITN should not be mirroring what newspapers do. We are much more selective in quality and importance and permanence given we are a global work. But there are current events that we know have permanence (like major disasters) that we do a very good job of covering in short term and thus makes sense to feature. --M ASEM (t) 14:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you feel something should be nominated, then you need to nominate it and convince others to support it, as well as do the work on the article. ITN is not about posting "top news" but about posting topical articles about subjects in the news that have been improved. People need to participate if they want to see more turnover in posted articles. It really is that simple, which is what I usually tell the occasional drive by comment similar to this that we get. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, it sounds very simple. But the balance sometimes looks skewed between those who want to improve articles and see them linked on the front age, those who chime in time after time just to say "not good enough" and those who want to promote a news item but are really not too fussed about improving the article. I've even thought about proposing that an editor should have to make some kind of improvement to a candidate article before being able to either support or oppose it! Because good quality articles is what it's all about, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC) p.s. by "top news item" I just meant the news item at the top of the list on the Front Page. Nothing to do with exciting news channel exclusives, etc.


 * I agree that the current format for ITN is dysfunctional and should be replaced. This has already happened in the Wikipedia app, which displays the latest top read articles instead.  This is a more sensible basis for telling people what's up because it is objective and can be updated automatically using the stats which are already kept.  For example, the app is currently telling me that the top 5 yesterday was:


 * 1) Spider-Man: Homecoming
 * 2) Stan Lee
 * 3) G20
 * 4) 2017 G20 Hamburg summit
 * 5) Tom Holland (actor)


 * There's then a link to the |full list. Notice that these pages have been getting hundreds of thousands of views but just a few nay-sayers at WP:ITN/C are able to block something like the G20 summit.  This violates all our core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. Andrew D. (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At first glance this is a very appealing alternative. However, I started to turn against it when I thought about vulnerabilities.  Maybe Spider-Man: Homecoming is really something that this many people want to look at ... but it is possible in the future that a movie maker looking for cheap publicity would set a botnet to work creating unique pageviews.  Pound Wikipedia with a few hundred thousand requests - which is not very much by DDOS standards -- and they could have their movie featured on our Main Page for its entire run.  That has to be worth something.  Worse, suppose two places have movies running that they want to promote.  They might generate millions of requests fighting each other for the top spot!  So in all I regretfully have to go against this one, even compared to the present situation. Wnt (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The bot problem already exists and is already dealt with. For example, see Non-human views and The XHamster Wikipedia page is suddenly immensely popular, and no one knows why.  ITN is currently more vulnerable because it would only take a few shill accounts to swing the tiny number of !votes.  I doubt that any serious SEO types would bother because the amount of influence at stake is tiny; ITN is only worth about 10K views per day and that's comparatively negligible.  As I said, the official Wikipedia app already uses a statistical approach and the results seem reasonable. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really convinced that is "dealt with". The former link talks about some pretty crude tests that spammers could readily evade - I mean, using all or no mobile device user-agents, or ramping up the hits too quickly.  Beyond that they admit they are "not perfect" - in other words, they are basically only excluding pretty much accidental bot attacks, which is already significant enough to matter.  The second link comes to the conclusion that -- no one could tell why XHamster was popular, or where the hits were coming from.  Neither of these inspire confidence.  Furthermore, I don't think you are right when you say ITN is worth "only 10K views per day".  The titles are on the page, so if the words Spider-Man appear on the Main Page, the way I see it, every viewer who comes to the Main Page has been hit with an ad reminder to watch the movie already.  If a portion of the 10K hits were then directed to the article, those would then be user click-through hits worth a few pennies apiece, so not counting the Main Page namedrop, this ITN traffic would be worth hundreds of dollars a day.  And then, where ITN voters are concerned, I don't rule out influence of all kinds, but positive influence seems to be relatively hard here - unlike with the Feature Ads where Square Enix has been entitled to have one article about their fine products run on the Main Page by their company WikiProject every 180 days for the past twelve years or so, in ITN I mostly see only a genteel arrangement to promote various sporting and music competitions once a year that are at least better known than Final Fantasy (except to Wikipedia readers, that is, who are thoroughly tired of hearing about that). Wnt (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - as someone who frequents the Top 25 report on a weekly basis, I don't see this as viable, as it is very, very often dominated by media. If we let page views determine ITN placement, Spidey would be on this week, WftPotA will be there next week followed swiftly by Dunkirk, GoT and maybe Valerian. 13 Reasons Why would have been on the main page for months. I personally don't believe that ITN should be dominated by media like this, though I agree that a direct main page link to the Top 25 or Top 500 would be wise. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To be sure, the Colonel is "yanking your crank" if you all believe this approach of tabloidism is what is to be recommended. Wikipedia would be ridiculed (as would Britannica) if all we did was pay heed to pageviews.  The Colonel has made these views public before, yet no-one takes them seriously, I don't understand why we're regurgitating the same old stuff.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker, not a tabloid, and it depends on consensus to determine which articles are really notable and of interest to our readers.  If the Colonel really wants a project to get stuck into, Recent Years is crying out for some common sense.  There, apparently, only one single globally significant event happened in February, April and May of this year.  One.  Uno.  Eins.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The statistical method is certainly viable because it is already in use . When I load the Wikipedia app today, it tells me that that top read article is Nelsan Ellis.  This recent death was nominated at WP:ITN/C two days ago but is hung up there because only three editors have !voted and one of them has opposed (no prizes for guessing).  Me, I try to avoid wasting my time on such discussions as they are quite unnecessary.  As for Britannica, they list "Trending Articles" on their main page.  They have a different main page for library users and that simply lists the top stories from the NYT and BBC.  That's another approach which is guaranteed to produce reasonably timely results.  Those methods are used and they work.  ITN doesn't work and that's where I came in. Andrew D. (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP applies, you know that, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea for you, make a proposal that the quality of ITN items is no longer of relevance. All of your various complaints about timeliness (not necessarily "relevance") boil down to the fact that items at ITN are stalled because they are of insufficient quality for main page inclusion.  You need to put your money where your mouth is if you want to be taken seriously now, as this has been going on quite some time.  So suggest an RFC where ITN candidates no longer consider quality as a criterion for inclusion on the main page.  That will absolutely guarantee a speedier update (what you want) and more tabloid-biased ticker (what you want).  If not, then I don't really see the purpose of your ongoing critiques of ITN which amount to nothing more than "I DONT LIKE IT" (but I'm not prepared to do anything positive about it all other than tell everyone I don't like it).  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So I'm long enough in the tooth to remember various other occasions where there hasn't been an ITN item for several days and folk have diagnosed ITN as being broken. One thing worth considering is that the argument "we should post this as ITN has been too quiet over the last few days" is often dismissed as invalid, the importance bar cannot be moved. However, ITN's purpose is to deliver timely content to the main page, and when these sorts of situations occur, we're patently not doing that. I think this argument should be given weight. --LukeSurlt c 16:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You might have something there. I have also long thought that part of the problem with ITN is the name, which results in the expectation of frequent turnover in stories(when that isn't what we are about at all). However I have not been able to come up with a better name, let alone one that might get consensus to implement. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN is not about delivering timely content, it is about featuring content that is above the bar for average WP pages that happen to be in the news at the current time. I do agree that when we have a lack of stories that we should be more open to posting things that meet ITN but typically would not be featured if there were a lot of other stories going on, but we shouldn't go against other standards that we have established (namely, avoiding a lot of the sensationalism in media today). --M ASEM (t) 12:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that is what it is supposed to be. Speaking personally, I tend to only come to the ITN candidates page when I have heard or seen a news item on the radio to TV. I suspect I'm not alone there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC) If I want to know what's really in the news, of course, I buy a real newspaper.


 * P.S. FWIW I think the main page should basically be this --LukeSurlt c 16:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mentioned this a while ago, Cryptic pointed out www.wikipedia.org still looks like this. I prefer the logo with the search box without ITN / TFA / OTD etc. Banedon (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, the main problem currently with ITN is that it becomes stale quickly, and that is because we can't reach a consensus on new items. As such, there are two options if we are serious about fixing ITN: In effect these two changes are the same: we collectively decide that some discussions do not need new consensus. This isn't really new; it is basically what ITNR is about. The question is, are we willing to go that route? I personally am.  Rami  R  08:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For me the manner in which the North Korea nomination progressed to closure was a difficult one to comprehend. I don't dispute that discussion had gone on for a while and a simple vote count would make it difficult to post, however it was trending towards support and at this time remains the most recent story which is on the verge of being posted. I disagreed to the point that I reversed an admin's decision (I maintain that I had the right to do so as it was not an admin action, and no-one can argue otherwise whilst simultaneously arguing that admins are not a superior class of editors). On another day might have considered doing so twice simply to provoke a more formal discussion. The G20 nomination seems to have stalled due to concern over the ease with which a blurb can be modified without scrutiny once posted, vs the minimum length of time something should go up to be considered "ongoing", rather than opposition to the story being featured per se. The Nuclear Treaty on the other hand is a bit more clear-cut – we're arguing over the newsworthiness of a treaty which will not be signed by anyone for nine weeks and which was not supported by America, Russia, China, France, Britain, North Korea or indeed anyone else with nukes, and even if we were to come to a consensus on that there are quality issues with the article. Most of the above simply being an informed opinion rather than something concrete, I don't dispute that there's something badly wrong with ITN. That's the easy bit. Identifying the fix on the other hand is more difficult, due to the general inertia of Wikipedia. Gone are the days when you can drive something through on the Main Page – to my knowledge the three most recent examples are the RD and ongoing sections at ITN, and the very existence of TFL. Those three slight tweaks take us back six years. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fully behind "delete ITN" per OP. The methodology behind nominations is silly and the purpose is also silly. If we believe in WP:NOTNEWS (as some people ardently do) then we should just remove the whole section. Banedon (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you still mad about failed nominations. Just because Wikipedia isn't a newspaper doesn't mean it CAN'T have ANY news. All this is is a stupid battle of IDONTLIKETHIS vs THISISMOARIMPORTANT. Let's do it. Here comes the sports ticker just to tick you off. LordAtlas (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Lower the threshold of significence. This means changing the wording in WP:ITN to something closer to WP:ITNRD, i.e. an event is presumed notable if it's in the news and we have an article about it (basically scrapping the second criterion). Or:
 * 2) Change the second criterion from "There is consensus to post the event" to "There isn't consensus against posting the event."
 * Seems reasonable. That's why RD chugs along reasonably nicely now because we took away all the "A is more important than B" and "we must post C because we posted D" subjective nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the first one but I agree the second one seems reasonable as long as article quality is OK. It would address the slow periods that we get. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly support #1, letting WP:N be the notability threshold would be a tremendous help. If implemented, #2 becomes largely irrelevant. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * #3: (I partially support #1 and sometimes more, sometimes less than support #2...)  This is actually more than I ask for.  I don't really want every new Pokemon character to have an ITN listing.  But I do want something to come out of the gate.  I suppose I should call this #3 in case anyone agrees.  What I would like is simply a rule that if an ITN hasn't been posted in 48 hours, someone can go through and choose the closest to passing and promote it.  I'd allow some leeway on how this is done - it can be anything from a simple vote count to a fancy AfD-like "I considered all the arguments and ... this is what I want".  You can ignore low significance or allow a less-developed article at closer's option.  If we want some process to it, we can require the closer to post an hour or two in advance that this is what he wants (the 48-hour deadline should be known and posted in advance, perhaps by a bot), and there can be a last minute discussion about which article to promote.  It just comes down to having to choose - once that applies, there's no need to go beyond the top choice. Wnt (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't need arbitrary time limits. #1 works because of the quality bar and the news requirement. New pokemon getting press coverage and a quality article? Post it. Why not? There is more to life than architecture prizes and rugby. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that 1 by itself would turn IT into a news ticker because not every article created about an event merits posting to the front of a global encyclopedia. 2 would help weed out the ones that don't. I would support merely implementing 2 and go from there. I don't support "3" without a judgement of article quality; don't think "last minute discussion" is practical. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We risk exposing ourselves to very severe systemic bias if we open the floodgates on ITN postings by lowering the notability threshold.--WaltCip (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I take your point that the "significance" determination seems out of whack. But I'm not sure if abandoning significance altogether is the right way, because someone still decides the significance in what to promote, and I'm not sure how (I mean, you'll have company reps submitting stuff daily if there's no barrier, and then how do you decide?)  There's a proposal above to do it by article requests - while I'm leery of that being abused, there could be ways to work that in that make abuse more difficult.  I'm thinking that the more totally independent ways we can make a significance metric, the less politics and abuse will come to bear on any one of them.  It's a little like antibiotic resistance in this regard. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Declaring WP:N be the notability threshold is a bit vague. Are we talking a new article, a new section or just a new fact in an article? Unlike people (i.e. recent deaths), news stories don't necessarily divide cleanly into articles. --LukeSurlt c 13:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * All this comes down to several facts that we can't change: news happens when it happens, we can't predict that, and that moreso today than ever before, we're subject to the media opting to be more sensationalist rather than objective and have spent more efforts on topics that do not make for good encyclopedic topics in the present (eg Russian interference in the US election, which is something that is best written about from an encyclopedic standpoint years after the matter than ongoing).  This leaves us with a lack of topics. That doesn't mean the media isn't reporting anything else, but their approach also skews what editors opt to write about on WP, and that's the other factor we do have control over, in that we often lack INTC nominations. We cannot !vote on topics that happen to be in the news if no one has brought them forward.  This has happened many many times before on ITN (last major point was around when Robin Williams died, as his death remained in the ITN list for about 2 weeks), but it is a necessary thing we need to accept to also use as the defense when editors claim we're country-bias with 4 of 5 topics being Euro or US-centric, or when sports results dominate the list.  That's how news works, we shouldn't be looking to change our selectivity aspects just because at a certain time we're not posting new stories with enough frequency. --M ASEM  (t) 13:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's always http://phys.org/ . An hour ago they linked to today's news article about a study that found hydroxychloroquine can protect fetuses from Zika, at least in mice.   Two hours ago they put out an article about a new phosphorus-containing analog to natural rubber.   Three hours ago they had an article about how concrete buildings act as a sponge to absorb sulfur dioxide.   Alright, to be sure, it looks like they had the weekend off before that, but we don't lack for options there... that is, if people aren't going to say that all this is insignificant, incremental, wait until a pill comes out (and then, what's special about a pill coming out) and so on. Wnt (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd always like to see more science articles but that tends to have two issues: one, people writing them and at a level that is reasonably appropriate for the front page, and two, making sure we are talking published research that has had some degree of vetting to make sure it is true. But one then also has to make sure we're not posting "intermediate" stories here either; the hydroxychloroquine for Zika prevention is great, but when you note that it is only studies on mice, that makes it not so great for ITN (we'd want to see approval for human use, most likely). --M ASEM (t) 14:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "bias" ITN has bias now, a very strong sports bias, a very strong death and destruction bias. Lets please stop pretending that we curb bias by suppressing stores. When RD was reformed, I kept hearing about the "floodgates" of "highscool basketball coaches", it didn't happen because no one is writing good articles about those topics. ITN doesn't get a lot of noms as it is, we're weeding them out based on "worthiness" or to "fight bias" which is silly. WP:N is fine, along with some discussion around coverage. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, ITN is definitely biased towards awards, death, and destruction. It seems to me like ITN is more likely post something if it involves death and destruction than it is if it involves charity and kindness.  For example, when I nominated One Love Manchester, I expected it to pass almost right away, but then I got opposes that said (for example) the event was a local event that got international coverage when it was broadcasted in over 20 or 30 countries and on social media.  On the other hand, a relatively local terrorist attack (according to what I believe their definition was) that got international media coverage like the Manchester bombing will get posted right away.  (Yes, I admit, I'm a little upset about that.  Not really because it was my ITN that got rejected, but because I believe it was clearly something that should've been accepted at ITN.)  If we're going to have standards like that for something uplifting, we need to apply those same standards to every ITN, including the ones about terrorist attacks.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's "In the news" not "What I believe should be in the news". The "ITN editorial board" shouldn't be second guessing the established news media. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that we should push topics not covered by news into ITN. It's instead being careful to highlight topics that happen to be ITN that are meaningful and relevant (and of course have a quality article); it's to prevent ITN from being a news ticker. We purposely do not consider the weight and balance of what a specific topic may get in worldwide coverage, because that is not something that necessarily contributes to a topic's long-term notability. We also don't want to be flooding ITN with stories that get incremental updates nearly every day by the media. We are an encyclopedia, so we should definitely be second-guessing what the media is pushing as important, because sometimes its just not important in the long-term; we have a very different filter here. --M ASEM (t) 15:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that sources don't matter, and instead we should be using ITN to push our personal agenda. Interesting.  Please elaborate!  -- Jayron 32 13:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we're using ITN to push the encyclopedia's agenda. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper, and what we deem important for the long-term knowledge of mankind is not the same as what a newspaper thinks people need to see right this minute. --M ASEM (t) 13:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly! And yet some editors are trying to push the currently flawed criteria of this project onto more encyclopedically valid projects such as WP:RY. 00:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk • contribs)
 * Oh dear, how embarrassing, you completely missed the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * 1) The story is getting "above the fold" coverage (or equivalent) in one of several pre-approved sources (WSJ, Times of London/India)
 * 2) The quality and QUANTITY of updated content is such that the consensus feels it is worth drawing attention to.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the ITN (including even the RD section) should be retired and removed from the main page altogether. There is little useful purpose that ITN serves now. Nowadays few people use the Wikipedia main page to decide which news to read. Instead they use other tools, like GoogleNews, various smartphone apps, etc. Similarly, if someone wants to follow-up, after reading a news-article, with reading a related WP article, they are much more likely to do a google search and follow the resulting Wikipedia article link than to use an ITN link from the WP main page for that purpose. On the other hand, ITN generates many problems, often embarrassing ones. The number of regular participants in the INT discussions is pretty small, especially compared to DYK, GA, FA. ITN appears to attract a fair share of cranks. Quite apart from that, in the ITN nomination discussions the various political and national biases of the participating editors are being unabashedly displayed, often carrying the day. Many, if not most, discussions, are ultimately carried by ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments. The system is also easily gamed since it is easy enough to tag-bomb or AfD an article one does not want to appear in ITN, thereby essentially killing its chances since the time-window for an ITN nomination to go through is in practice rather short. I just don't see ITN being a part of the main page as being beneficial to Wikipedia. We should trust our readers more to decide for themselves which news-stories, and related WP articles, they want to read. Nsk92 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN's goal is not to be a news source (nor is WP as a whole for that matter). But instead, by implementing minimum quality measures we are featuring articles of reasonable quality that just happen to be in the news in the hopes that interested editors will help improve them, just as the goal is with FAC and DYK. The choices made about how ITNC and ITNR pick and choose via consensus what to post make much more sense if you forgo any attempt at being a current news feature and more about highlighting how WP can be current on topics too. --M ASEM (t) 17:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP articles on current stories of real interest usually attract attention of sufficiently many interested editors anyway, without ITNC being involved. Occasionally having an article nominated at ITNC may have a positive affect of this article being cleaned up sooner than it would have been otherwise, but I think this benefit is far outweighed by the problems that ITN creates. Nsk92 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent deaths blurb deaths
So much death!

I wanted to drag up the RFC that implemented RD:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_42#Deaths_in_last_7_days
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_42#Recent_Deaths_.2F_In_The_News_change_proposal

"Rationale There is general consensus that continued conflicts over the scope of nominations of obituary postings to In the news can best be addressed by removing most nominated passings to a new separate section where Recent deaths is currently located. It was argued that this would better serve strong reader interest in recent passings, pay for itself in space by freeing up ITN from listing all but the most "important" deaths, and streamline the ITN nom process by ending debate of whether too many celebrities, etc., are being nominated. See that closed discussion here."

I actually opposed the creation of RD back then. Anyway, it was implemented, and it worked! Most deaths went into the RD box and other items stayed in the blurb box longer. Along the way a few "obvious" and "non controversial" items got blurbs (Thatcher and Mandela) then it began to slip a little: Michael Jackson, Prince, Mohammed Ali, some German chancellor that even the DE wiki didn't do a blurb for and now the same old bickering used to decide if someone was "important enough" for RD is now being used to fight and argue about blurbs. We have two death blurbs right now, neither really need to be there, and one pushed off the Battle of Mosul (2016-17) which is still getting regular updates. We're re-creating the exact problem that the RD box was implemented to prevent. Please stop. The bar for a blurb should be extremely high, and based more around the actual news media coverage than the ITN editorial board option of "what I think is important". Thanks. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like it either, but all this boils down to is we follow what the community consensus tells us, and in the case of the Fields Prize and Nobel Prize winners, consensus found in favour of a blurb. You're right that it's just shifted the battleground which used to exist on each and every RD to blurb;  but remember when we posted the American Fast and Furious guy, we've already set a seriously low precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The other thing I wish we'd stop doing is relying on precedent. We can just call those mistakes instead and not do it again. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, because we don't "not do it again", as displayed adequately currently on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The consensus has been that a death merits a blurb if 1) the person was a world transforming figure or otherwise at the tip-top in their field or 2) if the death itself as a event is the story and not just "X person died". Jackson, Prince, and Ali were all highly recognized in their fields; the German helped to reunify his country. RD was meant for "X person died" stories(especially more so now that all RDs are presumed notable) The only think I can say is that if you don't like the consensus (you yourself note that you did not like the consensus for RD but concede that it worked) that you recruit others of a like mind to participate. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, RD was meant for all deaths because the blurb box was becoming choked with obits. I don't disagree that there was consensus for all the recent blurbs, I'm just highlighting how we got to RD in the first place in the hope we don't end up back there. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposal Would it be too much to ask that a person who is notable enough for a bump to blurb would at least have a GA? If these people are so important, why can't they have quality articles when they are alive?GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't be a bad thing theoretically, but it would be functionally a nightmare to implement. You may get a handful of Bios who already have a GA when the subject croaks, but expecting editors to get one (nominated for a blurb) that isn't already a GA, up to GA status, jumping through all the GA hoops, in the short time allotted for discussion before it goes stale? I have severe doubts that is going to work. It would kill anything that isn't already a GA from getting a blurb, regardless of the merit of the subject. And of course there is the opposite issue, that there are GA's where the person is barely notable, but they have passed the GA tickbox checklist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) What it would mean is that if it wasn't already a GA at the time of death, it would only ever to to RD. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well yes, that is rather my point. Given the numbers of GA's, that will be the case of most biographies, regardless of the merit of the dead person deserving a blurb. If you want to break it down to 'GA gets a blurb' you *will* end up at some point with GA's of obscure sportsman being blurb'd more than history-making individuals. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be "if the RD is a GA it gets a blurb", but being a GA, or of a quality one can see is of at least GA, should be a minimum condition to a blurb. Consensus is still needed. --M ASEM  (t) 13:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Its just another subjective hurdle for people to argue over. "being a GA, or of a quality one can see is of at least GA" - so people will be arguing over 1. Is it GA quality, 2. Are they significant enough for a blurb. Adding another layer of arguments is not exactly simplifying the process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be simply "is it a GA", not "of a quality one can see is of at least GA" because that's pointlessly subjective. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that if we took this requirement for a blurb, we will run into a case of an RD of a person that clearly would be a blurb (say, a sitting g20 world leader) and the article is all of proper quality but just hasn't been run through the GA wringer, which is currently backed up and would likely cause the blurb to never be posted. What we do want to avoid are blurbs for articles like Maryam Mirzakhani that are nowhere close to a GA quality and that do not impress importance, even if the ITNC !voters are trying to do so. --M ASEM (t) 13:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind: GA's only require one person to review and pass, and GAs can quickly go south in quality after a long period of time. I think we want to impress that a minimum condition for an RD-as-blurb should be that the article has recently been noted as a GA (if not better) or, through consensus, pass GA's requirements. --M ASEM  (t) 14:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much as -User:Masem and User:Only in death outline, this is really not workable. The significance of a person and the quality of the associated article are not closely linked — in fact the long, detailed articles that highly notable persons are likely to have are much harder to maintain at a GA level. Also this completely ignores the fact that the manner of a person's death is a significant factor in blurb/not blurb considerations.
 * As with pretty much everything at ITNC, the blurb/not-blurb bar is a subjective matter that we resolve case-by-case by having a bunch of voices giving their opinions, and we should accept that. Inevitably the borderline cases are going to leave about half the people unhappy with that particular outcome. Trying to enforce "objective" criteria seems forced and likely counter-productive. --LukeSurlt c 16:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is completely unworkable. I do think requiring the GA closes too many doors too fast, that's a problem. But I do think we can at least review for quality and then squint and come to an agreement "Could this go through a GA process without too much hassle in its current state?" -- eg is it meeting the points at WP:WIAGA for the most part? I use Maryam Mirzakhani again as a case where the article in its present state does not meet the GA requirements and thus inappropriate for a blurb (but it's sufficiently long enough and sourced enough for the guaranteed RD). --M ASEM (t) 16:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Most people are not so emotionally involved in their ITN/C votes. The most proximate cause of "sour grapes" is when editors (and sometimes admins) push things because they want them published, to hell with the rules. The majority can actually fail to make the "right" choice, opinions aside. There are rules and guidelines set over long periods of discussion, baby steps, and trial & error that are suddenly tossed out the window when a deluge of sentimentality stuffs the ballot box. This guideline would be an elegant solution as it provides a) an elevated (vs. RD) metric of notability prior to the addition of death-related sentimentality, and b) an article that is more or less ready-to-go. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - GA is a measure of article quality, not notability. ITN/C's question regarding blurb/not-blurb is one of the latter. We currently strictly enforce WP:BLP for all deaths (blurb or RD) and this is sufficient. --LukeSurlt c 19:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently, that is true. What is being argued is that for an RD to be elevated to a blurb, article quality, above and beyond the standards for RD posting, should also be met. We still need the importance to avoid a bunch of "minor" athletes/entertainment stars who happen to have GA/FAs being elevated to blurb, but we should also have a better-than-average article quality as well. If you are claiming a person is so important to have a blurb, the quality of the article should reflect that. --M ASEM  (t) 20:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep good summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently Donald Trump is a mere C-class article. If he died suddenly, would we seriously delay posting a blurb until the article could go through a GA process without too much hassle in its current state? --LukeSurlt c 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's why I say we shouldn't require the GA, because GA is too slow; instead, we reasonably argue and come to consensus if it were to likely pass GA based on its state, and a quick scan shows that it is extremely well-sourced (outside a couple paragraphs) and fairly comprehensive and complete, so if that were at ITNC, I would say that article quality was there for a blurb post. I'm suggesting the bar should be based on if the current article meets WP:WIAGA, not that it actually is a GA currently (though recently passed GAs can be presumed to meet that). --M ASEM (t) 22:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So the threshold is that it is assessed to meet the Good article criteria, but it doesn't have to have been actually assessed to be a Good Article? This is not coherent.
 * To take President whose death we are more likely to be dealing with in the near future: Jimmy Carter patently doesn't meet the Good Article criteria, having been delisted in 2007 and failed a nomination in 2015. Similar story for George H. W. Bush (delisted 2016). We will almost certainly rapidly post these deaths as blurbs when they occur. It would be extremely problematic if at these occasions, with thousands of page views on the article, and a flurry of edits about the death, that we somehow have to get the article up to GA standards and and hold an actual- or pseudo-GA assessment before posting blurbs to ITN. --LukeSurlt c 23:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Carter was a non-controversial one term president, doesn't need a blurb. Almost no one needs a blurb. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough point at least with Carter, but that example gets to what I think is important is that the article is clearly approaching the GA standards in that it is extensively sourced (there are some CNs that would have to be fixed), and more importantly for a blurb, fairly comprehensive of his career. Compare that to the state of Maryam Mirzakhani (it's gotten somewhat better over the last few days) which begs to understand why this person was important to justify the blurb, because the comprehensiveness is just not there. I realize academics are harder to find sources for, but that's why we have the very easily metric for RD posting. So yes, maybe using GA standards as the metric is not workable, but I think there's something that can be said that we're looking for something that is better than a short bio to justify a blurb's posting.
 * However, on your point about Bush, the point of ITN is to bring editors to these articles and help improve them. We want there to be a flurry of activity. The whole reason we seek a minimum quality even with RDs is to serve as example to new editors that help out in this manner so that they aren't adding info without sources, for example. If we had an article that was a GA and then it appeared in ITN, I would expect that there would be a good period of time where that GA quality could be questioned because of all the new additions but that would sort itself out in the end. We just want a good starting point. --M ASEM (t) 23:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Proposal Nice to see some feedback from everyone above. I have a proposal as well: lets admins use their discretion to move death blurbs down to RD once a story has dropped out of the headlines. Liu was getting coverage days after his passing with a "hasty cremation and burial at sea", I never saw Mirzakhani in the Google news top 20 (yes regional bias algorithms and someones national paper featured it I'm sure, but as an example...). I'm not thrilled about them going up in the first place, but at least they could fall down to RD when they've left the headlines. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to say we've done that before but I can't recall specifically(maybe I'm confused with Ongoing). No issue there. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be disproportional with the rest of ITN, where most stories are long out of the news. Even big deaths are going to drop out of the news within 2-3 days. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Another proposal (amend the guidelines?) focus on news coverage and not contributors personal opinions of "importance". Support rationales like "making headlines worldwide, mentioned on the BBC 6 o'clock news" would carry more weight than "I think this important person who won an award I think is important deserves a blurb". Ed's up/down vote counting of weak consensus would be considered inappropriate in this scenario. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Admins are already free to use that to determine consensus. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Even if we can't use the "objective" GA requirements, I still think there needs to be something of about "better-than-average quality" for a RD to be promoted to a blurb. RD is automatic as long as baseline quality is there, but a blurb should require more in quality of the article to justify why that person was so important for a blurb, recognizing we can't go by volume of death coverage (this would weigh too far in favor of celebs and athletes and bias against academics and non-Western figures). Anything I can think of for this is very subjective, so maybe there isn't any hard requirements we can set, but I would prefer to see language for ITNC and posting admins to consider how comprehensive an article is, above and beyond the expected RD standards and !votes, before posting a blurb for a figure that clearly otherwise would get an RD. Guidance but not hard objective metrics since we simply can't provide that. The article for a RD-blurb should be of considerable quality that there's no doubt that person was important, and that's usually achieved when the article is comprehensive for a person in that position. We need something more than !votes that say "This person was really important, make it a blurb!" which is very easy to be gamed and weigh !votes in a given direction. Those !votes would be find if we had a 50k article that backed that up, compared with a 2k article. --M ASEM (t) 20:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RDs and filmography/equivalent sections
At least one recent RD cases have been nominated with a filmography list in the bio's page, but during the ITNC nomination period, the list was pushed off to a separate page for unclear reasons but most likely to avoid having to source every entry on the list (as we have asked before), as to make it appropriate to post (Martin Landau had a filmography when his death was reported, it was pushed off the page onto a mostly unsourced Martin Landau filmography page; after that, the original bio seemed fit to post and it was)

I think this is a very bad idea as it hides the referencing problem with the filmography; someone still needs to do that. I know that people are bitter that we'd like to see complete sourcing for filmographies, and I agree there's some compromises here (actors in starring roles in certain films are uncontestable facts), but I don't think completely stripping the filmography to a separate article and effectively sweeping the issue under the rug is the solution.

To be clear, if there was already a separate filmography page, as was the case for George A. Romero when his death was noted, this is not as great a problem. Yes, that filmography still needs to be sourced but its not gaming the ITNC system if it had been moved off the bio page well before the point of death.

This would apply to any -ography section, filmographies tend to be the one this happens with the most. --M ASEM (t) 12:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The reality is Wikipedia's filmographies are based on IMDb, despite it not having reliable source status. The consequence is that items appear without any reference at all. There's a fairly weak argument that the implicit reference for each item on a filmography is the credits within the work itself. --LukeSurlt c 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not the place for this, but I don't understand the need for secondary references filmographies/bibliographies; they are sources themselves. Can't I just list a publisher/distributor and year? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable. We don't usually list the source of the plot sections in articles (whether they be books, TV shows, or video games) because the source of the plot is the subject of the article.  It's essentially the same with credits in movies, except in cases where the actor was uncredited.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 19:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well not really. Many film appearances are either red links or not linked, so impossible to verify, some blue-links may mention the actor but not reference it, most television and radio appearances are limited to just saying what show someone appeared on, not the specific episode, so once again very hard to verify.  Lazy referencing should not be encouraged, decent filmographies (see WP:FL, there are plenty) use inline sourcing for each appearance and don't rely on IMDB.  It can be done, easily, but most people lack the application and prefer to adopt the "rely on others" approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no, I was saying that, aside from uncredited appearances, credits could be sourced from the source material the same way most plot sections are. For example, if X appears in Y movie, the source for this would be Y movie's credits sequence, unless X is uncredited.  If X is uncredited, then there would need to be a reliable source (or IMDb, I guess...) other than Y movie stating that X was in the movie.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 20:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not RS, for anything. X appearing in Y movie is fine, but actually we should be looking to make each article independent of that kind of thing, allowing our readers to easily verifiable such claims.  After all, you could then go on to argue that Academy Award winners don't need references, just watch the awards ceremonies, for instance.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And then you start getting into the problem where only some of the films in a filmography are referenced and the others not, and it looks bad. Whereas for books and albums, we can include the ISBN number which gets to a site that is not user-edited that can be used to validate the authorship, we don't have that for films, and thus even though it might seem obvious, I think these really do need sourcing, even if the source is back to the primary work as a cite template. Films are not as bad, but television cameos are where this sourcing issue really becomes a problem. (Even when I was doing, I think Carrie Fisher back then, where I was able to use tcm.com for most there were still gaps that WP had listed but I could not verify in TV cameos). --M ASEM  (t) 20:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are presented with 3 someones who really deserves an RD mention. One has no filmography, one has an unreferenced filmography on another page, and one has an unreferenced filmography on the page. The first two get posted, and the third does not. And moving the filmography to a separate page is in your eyes gaming the system. I don't know...this feels like we're cutting off our noses to spite our face. If all material needs to be referenced, deleting unreferenced material does not seem like such a great evil. You make a good faith effort to cite, sure, but then you delete rather than deny George A Romero an RD while Mirzakhani has a blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the OP's concerns. As the nom for the article on Landau I knew it was poorly sourced and fully expected it was going to take a good day or so to get it up to scratch. While I have seen instances in the past where filmographies and the like have either been deleted or sent elsewhere, with a few exceptions I tend to think that is rather cheesy and a poor solution to the problem of lack of citations. Especially given that I am on record favoring deletion of articles that are entirely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing
Is there a rule for when to close a nomination please? This seems to be happening quite a lot, very quickly, which makes it harder for more editors to respond. Thank you,Zigzig20s (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone was voting against you. That's what happened. If there's no realistic chance to pass, it'll be closed. LordAtlas (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not about me. This also happened with the Russian thing. Although in the Iran case, the closer had voted oppose--is that not problematic?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not when it is clear that it isn't going to get consensus. 331dot (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you know? Nobody knows if we close nominations within 24 hours. My point is, shouldn't we wait longer to allow for more editors to respond?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If an editor or editors new to the discussion believe in good faith that the nomination merits posting, they can reopen it, as is the case with most things on Wikipedia. Arbitrary minimum discussion times have been rejected numerous times in the past. 331dot (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Where please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In 2013, 2016 are the two I can find briefly searching. I think it's come up some other times but that's what I can find quickly. 331dot (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What about topics being closed by editors who voted oppose--is there a rule for that please? I voted oppose on the Russian thing but I wouldn't've closed it.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You could have. I could be wrong but I don't think anything related to that is written down(and WP:CLOSE states that "There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion".)  I believe general practice across Wikipedia is that if a topic is controversial, it shouldn't be closed by an involved editor. In the cases you discuss above, however, there was no support or even a prospect for support. As I indicated, if someone comes along later and believes in good faith that they support posting, they can reopen. Closing is not written in stone. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (EC) See WP:CLOSE (which is an information page, NOT policy or guideline) which details some things about it. In practice 90% of the time a discussion should not be formally closed by a participant. The other 10% being obvious decisions/snow etc where even if the discussion is closed by someone else, it will be closed the same way. Disputing an obvious decision because of who closed it (involved, non-admin etc), rather than any actual policy based reason tends to be looked on as wikilawyering. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no hard rule, but once the regulars have poured on their opposes, someone closes it so that they don't come and accidentally oppose it again. Don't be discouraged though. PS: article quality seems to beat most other considerations so write a decent article before nominating and you'll have a better chance of getting it on the main page. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So because I like to spend time in this part of Wikipedia my views should count less? I don't "pour on" anything. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your views should be equal to everyone else but when enough "regulars" pour on opposes it's declared "good enough" and the nom get's closed w/o further input. Yes we can "re-open" or, and I know this is radical, you could just stop closing noms when a handful of regulars have decided "We're not posting this". It hurts absolutely nothing to keep it open. Closure has a sense of finality to it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How is your effort to recruit new participants going? 331dot (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you are expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with "regulars" I assume you are or would like to recruit new participants to ITN? 331dot (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't know me, or anything about me, or my intentions or desires and I think the best thing for you to do is to keep your assumptions about my intentions and desires to yourself. Thanks for your participation though. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I simply wanted to know if you were putting your money where your mouth is. I will not address this any more unless you wish it. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for not hurting, it all depends. some instances would be a waste of time, while others degenerate into bickering. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You bandy about WP:SNOW often enough already I've seen it thanks. Waste of time is simple: don't participate. Bickering is simple: don't participate. Closing off a nomination because childish regulars are trading sarcastic barbs sounds like a poor solution to a larger problem. SNOW closing noms prematurely leads to the experience the OP is here protesting: A good faith nom shot down in flames and the regulars hitting him(?) over the head with WP:SNOW. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All I'll say is that I await your building of a consensus to implement any changes you'd like to see. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you hang around ITN/C long enough, you'll notice how reserved some of the regulars are despite the fact that many of them virtually live there. While some articles go days without comments, the really bad noms get 4 votes in an hour then SNOW'ed because they're low hanging fruit. I may not have an opinion on George Romero (seriously: where is the love?!), but I definitely know the latest US spy COUGH student getting caught in Iran or whatever that Russia nom was is going nowhere. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the Russia thing is dominating the news cycle but the regulars agree "Waaaa media hates Trump also American bias". I knew that the Iran spy thing was doomed, but user Zigzig20s didn't, and a new contributor to ITN could have benefited more from helpful feedback like "the article is too small to feature" than "Not unusual at all; the only reason to post this is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. As mentioned before I prefer a 24-hour period before closing any discussion, but not enough people feel the same way. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Too short?
Is Blaoui Houari too short for an RD nomination please? Do RDs have to be starts?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't usually link stubs to the main page. But this looks like a start class article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see someone rated it as a stub, but I think I'd call it a start. Just my $.02. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did (but I've just changed it to start status thanks to you). I'm the only who created it today. Anyway, I will be BOLD and nominate it. We'll see what happens.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That article is definitely more than a stub. --LukeSurlt c 11:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not complaining, just asking: given preceding conversation about deleting rather than citing - I don't think it's right that we post this and not Romero. I've been trying trying (and failing) to find citations for some of the stuff in Romero's article. What is the right thing to do? I feel like there's a paradox here; Romero's greater notability caused someone to write a bunch about him that is undoubtedly true, but not cited. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's unverifiable, BLP applies and it should be removed. If it seems reasonable but is still unverifiable, I suppose you could move it to the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

One to watch
Mauritanian constitutional referendum, 2017.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't someone...
... going to nominate Salvadore Dali's "intact" mustache for something? Sca (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do hope so. I'd give it a "10, 10"... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Chris Froome
This isn't an error so I wasn't sure where to ask this, but I think it would be better to specify that Chris Froome has won the Tour de France for the fourth time rather than as it is now. While four men have won the Tour five times, there are no other four time winners so Froome is currently in a rank by himself.
 * Changes to the blurbs will get a faster response at WP:ERRORS even if it isn't technically an "error" per se. That or you can post to the ITNC discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Women's Cricket World Cup
It is proposed that the Women's Cricket World Cup be added to the list of recurring items for In the news.

Any comments (supporting, opposing or other) should be left at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items. Comments here will not be evaluated. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles at DRV
If an article is current at AfD it is not eligible to be posted on the main page until the discussion is closed. This (imo) is clearly the correct situation. However there is no current rule that I can find about what happens if an AfD is closed as keep before a news item is stale (and thus becomes eligible again) but that close is taken to DRV. For a recent death, the chance of an AfD being closed as keep, the entry being posted, and a DRV overturning that to delete all within 7 days is pretty infinitesimal, but in slow news periods a blurb could hang around long enough for it to matter, although it is still unlikely. Given this I don't think an open DRV should prohibit an ITN appearance but I think it is worth hearing other's views. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur although it sounds like it would be a rare situation. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this based on an actual example? If not, wouldn't it be better to wait to see what the particular facts of the case are, rather than trying to legislate in advance for all possibilities? BencherliteTalk 18:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually disagree with AfD blocking an ITN, because it only takes one user to do it. Suppose a certain... um, hamster dies and I feel she is not notable. I cannot oppose the RD on those grounds without an AfD. So I write the AfD and get stomped like a NARC at a biker rally but still manage to prevent the cat's RD from getting considered for 24-36 hours. My actions were completely above board, but it feels wrong that my good faith AfD weighs heavier than just an oppose. ITNRD painted me into a corner. I think it's a real failure of the process. I know you're asking about DRV, but given the time frames involved, even an AfD is problematic. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you would not have nominated it at AfD if it wasn't an RD (or blurb) nomination then don't nominate it just because it is. Indeed if you nominate it only to block a main page appearance your nomination isn't in good faith and should be speedily closed. If you are clearly wrong in your nomination (whether made in good faith or otherwise) then it should be speedily closed, as happened with the Stubbs (cat) nomination and things can progress normally afterwards. If the nomination is not speedily closed then it's functioning as intended. For a good example of how to proceed see Articles for deletion/Jadwiga Szubartowicz which was nominated at AfD while also nominated for RD, but only after a discussion on the article talk page to see if others agreed with the concerns. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it is a good faith AfD if I honestly believe that the target does not meet the notability guidelines to have an article. That this happened in response to an RD nom and was an effort to decide notability prior to posting to the main page does not make it bad faith. Surely you know this, because you personally recommended the AFD to me in the RD conversation. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In my mind the question is simple - if it wasn't an RD nomination would you nominate it for deletion? If yes, then the nomination is in good faith. If no, then the nomination is not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) WP:Articles for deletion/Stubbs (cat) hasn't been DRV'd yet but the NAC is being questioned at the closer's talk page. The discussion at ITNC has now been re-opened but we may have to close it again if the AFD is re-opened! Admittedly this kind of thing doesn't happen very often but there should be something in place to deal with it when it does occur. I agree with Thryduulf that a DRV should not lead to an RD item being pulled. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

ITN Criteria for Sport
I've been reading a lot of old sports noms lately, and have noticed a consistent theme. Someone will point to some criterion for inclusion or omission, and another user will counter that criterion is not relevant. Examples of this are regionalism, viewership, prize money, supremacy/primacy, amateurism, tradition, collegiate participants, and media coverage. I'm wondering it there is any appetite for a debate/RfC of inclusion criteria. It would seem that, for example, the total viewership of a sport is either relevant or irrelevant to its inclusion in ITN, but cannot be held to relevant for rugby and irrelevant for cricket. This is not about including or excluding any specific event. I am primarily concerned with different sport being held to different standards, as an editor feels supports his own interests. I know this will be seen as CREEP, and I get that argument. But it seems we are picking winners and losers today using unwritten and inconsistent rules. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that way lies systemic bias. We should be posting good articles about interesting sports.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With sports we mostly rely on ITNR. That said, ITNR should not be seen as a complete list (For example the recent Women's Cricket World Cup was absent). But to that end the factors that typically go into a sports result are:
 * If it is the highest or one of the highest championships in the field (eg this is one reason the Boat Race is there because its considered a top rowing event in the world)
 * If it is multinational/regional compared to single country, if the sport is normally enjoyed around the globe (eg We'll do World Cup for FIFA but not national championships, but for American football, we'll do the US-centric Super Bowl since few other countries have that).
 * At which point, then it becomes a matter of comparing the given event to other events that we already cover. New sports would have to be judged separately (for example, eSports has been discussed in the past but its still too novel an area to know what are key events). --M ASEM (t) 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * a) ITNR is the tail wagging the dog. It is meant to suggest that consensus has already been reached that the event meets the standard, it cannot itself be the standard b) for soccer we DO have a national contest in ITNR - the English premiership. But no Spanish, German, or Italian leagues. And we have 4 of 6 confederation championships; why not the others? We also recently posted the Indian Cricket League final. I think these rationale all become very circular - we post what we want then rationalize it after the fact. The College Football Playoff is the second biggest event of its code, but its annual nom is eviscerated as second tier. Meanwhile there are 4 Rugby items in ITN, but we still post the British and Irish Lions. Surely one of these five is lower than the rest? The Boat Race is "a" top event in rowing; not THE top event? Which is, and why is THAT not in ITNR? The X games are not posted as "fringe;" who decided that? Based on what? We are not applying the same standard. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the end, these things are all decided by consensus. If you feel something should be added or removed from ITN/R, feel free to start a discussion on that particular issue. Certain things that aren't ITN/R sometimes get posted by consensus, too.  But I think you're misconstruing some events. The Indian Premier League, for example, is the biggest limited overs cricket league in the world (cricket also being the 2nd most popular sport in the world, let us not forget), and features players from all over the globe too, not just India.  That's why it's in ITN/R (the only annual cricket competition to be posted, incidentally - the rest are 3 or 4-yearly). We don't post the second biggest cricket league in the world, which is analogous to the College Football Playoff. "Fringe" sports are more problematical;  as I said in the discussion, if we posted even the highest level of every fringe sport, ITN would be overrun.  There has to be a cutoff point, which is why ITNR exists. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Each sport should be discussed on an individual basis as each is included for its own reasons and merits. You are free to propose specific sports to be added or removed from the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As a general point, remember it's pretty much the middle of the (northern hemisphere) summer, hence there's a lot of sport on. There'll be a lot less in a few months time. --LukeSurlt c 21:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I misspoke; it was the 2017 ICC Champions Trophy Final, which is non-ITN/R. Again, my primary concern is that one sport is denied a second event because of the primacy of the first, while several others are allowed 4+ entries, where clearly some of the events are of secondary prominence. I'm merely suggesting we use some modicum of fairness to make the decisions. It's the deciding each event independently which has led to rampant bias. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not "bias" to realize that some sports are bigger than others, and have more than one competition which are regularly "in the news". The decisions we make at ITNC regarding sport (and pretty much everything else) are, unavoidably, arbitrary, but that doesn't make them wrong. Practically, it's the presence of decent quantities of prose in sporting competition articles which makes the biggest difference to whether something is posted or not, rather than assessments of importance, biased or otherwise. --LukeSurlt c 22:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the reason that many sports have multiple entries is because many major competitions aren't annual; there are 9 ITN/R entries for football, but only three are annual; the rest are 2, 3, or (mostly) 4-yearly. So most years you'll have between 4 and 6 entries, and that's for the most popular sport on the planet.  Obviously, if you think the College Playoff is worth including at ITNR, then start a discussion about it - the worst that can happen is that it can be rejected. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My concern is not college football, I just think it's a good example of when the consensus opinion chooses to reject based on criteria that are not applied equally to other sports. This is my key point. And the notion that soccer gets more ITNs because it's more popular the gridiron is exactly the kind of standard I'm talking about introducing; it's reasonable, but it's not a rule anyone agreed to. Let's give the fringe sports one event each annually, until they prove more popular. Nevertheless - I thank everyone for their thoughts. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not reasonable to give every "fringe sport" one event annually as we'll be overrun by events that even aficionados of that sport don't regard as particularly significant. In cricket it's uncontroversial that the Indian Premier League is the most significant annual competition and most significant domestic* league by a big margin by several different measures (best players, most spectators, most coverage, etc; *it's more like an international league hosted in India). For Badminton which of the Thomas Cup, Sudirman Cup, BWF World Championships or Uber Cup do you pick for your 1 event? What about Taekwondo, Fencing, Boccia, Canoe slalom, Luge, etc, etc? Also what is a separate sport - do Offshore powerboat racing and Inshore powerboat racing get 1 spot or 2? Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And also quite a few sports, even the most high-profile ones, don't neatly follow a calendar at all. I can assure you that even hardcore boxing fans will struggle to name the current holders of the AIBA World Boxing Championships, despite their officially being the sport's most prestigious event. Plus, I'm not sure you realize how many "fringe sports" there are. There are over 300 Olympic and 500 Paralympic disciplines; posting the annual championship in each of those disciplines alone (which wouldn't include cricket, American football etc) would mean an average of two sports stories per day, and in practice having to cram 10-20 events per day into ITN during the northern hemisphere summer. &#8209; Iridescent 08:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Having supremely high-quality articles on every one of those topics would be a nice problem to have. Making articles a high-enough quality for the main page should never be discouraged.  "Please don't improve this article, because your sport isn't important enough for me to care about" is not a way we should be conducting business around here.  It's academic anyways; none of these events has ever really had a quality article to post.  If it did, I personally wouldn't have a problem posting it, and when ITN gets a flood of superior quality writing of such a volume that we can't possibly keep up with posting it all on the main page, then we can start having the discussion about what's important enough. Until that happens, we should stop being so precious about our own personal opinions as to what we think is "important" and just focus on encouraging good writing.  -- Jayron 32 03:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove ITNR for AFC Asian Cup
I've made a nomination to remove the AFC Asian Cup from ITNR over here. Please do stop by to eviscerate my rationale & call me a sour yankee homer. GCG (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

RD when subject has no article
If we're going to disregard (twice now) the RD guidelines that a subject have a standalone article, we might as well clarify that in the guidelines. Perhaps changing "if it has a Wikipedia article" to "if the subject has a Wikipedia article or the death of the subject as an event has a Wikipedia article". 331dot (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is necessary, and the death of the subject as an event has a Wikipedia article doesn't quite cover Gard - as the article was more the legal case than his death. That wording could also justify posting the names of non-notable victims of notable crimes (i.e. terrorist attacks). In practice we can IAR on the current rule when appropriate. --LukeSurlt c 21:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, I've often nominated articles for RD that I'd just created after reading about their deaths. Isn't that the obvious thing to do?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Change, as the guidance is not a necessary and sufficient one - it does not say anything about a person that does not have an article. Just that it is not automate as if there was an automatic allowance. IAR works find. --M ASEM (t) 22:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're going to consistently ignore a rule we should change the rule so we don't need to ignore it. I'm open to different wording. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, read the "rule": if a subject has a standalone article on WP, and it is up to quality, then it automatically qualifies for RD. It does not say that "if the subject does not have a standalone article, it cannot quality for an RD". I think the way it's been handled has been right in line with the existing rule and a dash of IAR consensus.  --M ASEM  (t) 23:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the rule and IMO it doesn't say that currently. The very name Recent Deaths suggests we are posting articles about things that have died. If we are expanding that to situations like Charlie Gard(notable events that deal with a deceased person) then we should say so, so we don't have to ignore anything. If we interpret the RD guidelines as you suggest, then there would seem to be little point in having them and they should be removed in total and we can just put whatever we want in RD. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule says nothing about any RD that lacks an article, either way (to post or not eligible to post). That means we treat those situations case by case, which is exactly what has happened recently. The rule was added so that we weren't playing games of arguing importance where the person already had a standalone article, and we're still working off that for these cases. --M ASEM (t) 23:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose making them automatically eligible. I do not oppose adding a note that those who do not have a stand-alone article but whose biography forms a significant part of another article can be added to RD if there is consensus to do so and they meet the quality and not-nominated-for-deletion criteria. I think this is implicit in the current wording but if others disagree I don't see a good reason not to make it explicit. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's sort of what I'm saying I guess, though you said it better. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support a clarification. Apologies for adding such earlier to ITNRD, I was unaware of this discussion as I hadn't thought to look here. It should be made clear that an individual who does not have a stand-alone article is not guaranteed a spot in RD, but this is to be on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * see the proposal to do just that immediately below. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

RD when subject has no article - alternative proposal
Following on from the above discussion, and the disagreement about whether individuals like Ian Brady (Moors murders) and Charlie Gard (Charlie Gard case) without individual articles are permitted entries in the recent deaths section implicitly according to the criteria or only by application of IAR, it's probably best to make things explicit. Accordingly I propose that the following sentence be added to In the news after "This does not apply to species (or higher taxonomic groupings) or non-living entities.":
 * The recent death of an individual who do not have a standalone article but whose biography forms a significant part of a larger article may be added this section subject to consensus on a case-by-case basis if the article meets the criteria above.

"The criteria above" refers to the requirements to be updated, not nominated for deletion and of sufficient quality that apply to an article about an individual. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn in favour of third proposal, see below. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, as I point out above, nothing in the current "rules" prohibits this (or promotes it), so how we've handled it has been correct. The only thing I think makes sense is to be clear that the current RD statement is not a requirement for something to be posted as RD. --M ASEM (t) 16:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what I'm proposing here and exactly why I'm proposing it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We also will not have to continually invoke IAR which should be the exception and not the rule. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Invoking IAR twice to handle this situation hardly meets the definition of "continually". IAR exists for exactly cases like this, and we don't need to create a rule for the second time it happens.  Or even the third or fourth.  And saying that doesn't mean if I get tired typing ordinal numbers that means I'm endorsing creating a rule after that point.  IAR is always sufficient here.  -- Jayron 32 11:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is continual when it is the only two times AFAIK this situation has come up, because the next time those times will be cited as precedent. Might as well make it official. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's only come up twice in history, it's rare enough to not require a rule. -- Jayron 32 17:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not creating a rule here, we're clarifying the exist one. Also while "twice in history" is technically correct it is equally correct to say "twice in a year" as it could not happen before the current RD criteria began (19 July 2016) and "twice in three months" as the first occasion was in mid-May this year. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Per my comments above, I support this proposal for a clarification. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If we are going to clarify that there are other conditions we haven't explicitly listed for RD, we should go for the more generic approach: "Other deaths not covered by the above may be included in RD, such as those of persons without standalone articles, but each should be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis at ITN/C, emphasizing the need for the topic being in the news and the quality of the updated article."  --M ASEM  (t) 21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, and I prefer most of your suggestion but not the last bit. How about "Other deaths not covered by the above may be included in RD, such as those of persons without standalone articles, but each should be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis at ITN/C. Such articles are required to meet the same update and quality standards as a standalone article."? Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. I'm just trying to think of anything else to cut off any potential debates about what can and can't be RD given that right now, nothing else is prohibited from being an RD as long as there's consensus behind it. --M ASEM (t) 12:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * IAR's great, but it allows us to give in too easily to mass hysteria. There was this desire by some to cram this story into ITN, rules be damned. Which is okay; consensus is the whole point. But the rules provided a good solution: Charlie Gard was not notable enough to have an article. The Charlie Gard case was not notable enough to get a blurb. we should have left it out. There's no sense in codify this mistake; just file it with Fisher/Reynolds and move on. GCG (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The rules did not have to be ignored to post Charlie Gard as there was consensus to include him on RD. The rules simply prohibit his automatic inclusion on RD. It's fine to disagree with the consensus to post, but that does not make the consensus wrong or the posting a mistake. Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To suggest the consensus to post is a mistake is my opinion. That the RD rule only applies to inclusion is your opinion, where exclusion is a better way to interpret the rule in my opinion. We have rules to prevent anarchy, and IAR for when the rules don't quite work. But IAR and consensus allow for abuse. Suppose we have a high profile story with overwhelming consensus (say 20 supports) to post, but the article is an uncited mess. An IAR argument might say "we're better posting a bad article than ignoring a huge story." An admin would be equally justified in refusing to post a bad article, or ignoring the quality and saying consensus is the most important factor. It is our own little constitutional crisis - if the consensus can always say IAR, why have any rules at all? GCG (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're basically arguing against IAR. That's a pretty core Wikipedia (not ITN) policy. --LukeSurlt c 11:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is perfectly fine. For IAR to be valid, a credible argument has to be presented that ignoring the rule improves or helps to maintain the encyclopedia. If the result of IAR'ing has neither of those effects, regardless of how many people want it, its not a valid IAR. Not posting an RD does not in any way lessen the encyclopedia or detract from its maintenance in any way. Posting an RD does not 'improve' the encyclopedia, it only increases visibility to certain sections of it. That may have a knock-on effect of improving those articles, but where the subject has no article and that situation is unlikely to change, there is no credible argument that there will be any improvement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While Gard did not have an article, we did have a comprehensive article on an event/situation that he was the focal point of, in addition to the name being somewhat household in at least the UK due to that, so there was potential improvement. I would argue to this point if we were talking about something like a close relative of a famous person who was completely unnotable save for happening to be a relative of that person and their death only covered due to the impact it had on the famous person, or say a case of a sixth of a series of drummers for a otherwise famous band that had a lot of turnover in their ranks but just happened to die from a mysterious gardening accident and we had little else known about them. These cases, the deceased person would be a line or two in said article, and that would not be ripe for improvements, thus not appropriate to post as RD. --M ASEM  (t) 12:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ...or spontaneous combustion... But if you have to make that sort of extended 'this might at some point lead to an improvement' then its really not a candidate for IAR. What is clear from the above discussion is that the rules for RD are not clear - or at least being interpreted in different ways. It either needs to explicitly say 'you don't have to have an article to appear on RD' or 'You do have to have an article to appear'. Then assuming the edge case crops up that isn't covered by either of above, IAR can be appropriately assessed. As it stands you have people arguing its IAR, and people arguing its not even a rule. You cant have it both ways. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule from the previous RFC was specifically designed to avoid endless debates about who was considered important enough to list at RD, and instead adopt a non-biased approach that as long as there was a quality, updated standalone article specifically about that person (or living thing), then RD posting was assured. We're in edge cases where we are still considering that now we don't have the standalone article but the death has still be covered by the news, and there's an article on a very closely related topic (in Gard's case, the legal battle over treatment rights for him) that has been updated and is of quality. Its clear no one is suggesting this automatically qualifies because there's too many variables that need to be reviewed in consensus, in contrast to normal RDs (which requires 3 mostly objective points: in the news, updated, and of quality). --M ASEM (t) 13:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that all three of those are still required for an RD listing of someone without a standalone article - consensus is an alternative to the standalone article requirement only. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

RD when the subject has no article - third proposal
After the discussions above it is even more clear that the situation needs clarification, so Masem and I are proposing the following sentence be added at In the news after "This does not apply to species (or higher taxonomic groupings) or non-living entities.":
 * Other deaths not covered by the above may be included in RD, such as those of persons without standalone articles, but each should be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis at ITN/C. Such articles are required to meet the same update and quality standards as a standalone article.

It's worth stressing that this is a clarification in line with what is apparently the majority interpretation of the existing rule, not a new rule. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Previous ITN sections
This is a suggestion, but not about content. There doesn't seem to be a means for finding 'In the News' for a prior date. Some other sections allow accessing prior editions (archive, etc.); I am probably not the only person who would find it useful to be able to search for a previous ITN edition by date. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E14F:DD6F:CFA5:F319 (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Look at the edit history for In the news. You might need to click through several times to get to the right page but once you find the revision(s) on the date, you'll know what was there. Otherwise, you'd need to search the ITN/C candidates to see what was discussed. --M ASEM (t) 23:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks (-ish). — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E14F:DD6F:CFA5:F319 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The ITN_archives exist, but only go up to 2011. It would be possible to go through the In the news edit history and fill this out, but that's a lot of work. --LukeSurlt c 13:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a specific date, then use the month and year filters in the "search for revisions" box at the top of the history page of Template:In the news. If you are looking for a specific story, then use either the revision history search on the template history page, or search the ITN/C archives. Because of the nature of ITN it's not simple to present an archive per date - for example there were 12 revisions on 22 June and none on 4 July. Even if you only count substantively different versions there were 5 different "editions" on 26 July so which would you choose as the archive for the day? Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it change even after it goes live on the home page? — I am probably wrong in my assumption that it changes on a daily basis; does it change as news emerges? 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C831:3084:8358:5EE7 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The ITN section on the main page is just a transclusion of template:In the news, so as soon as the template is updated it goes live on the main page (ignoring any caching issues). The template is updated whenever something nominated at In the news/Candidates gains consensus to post, or a correction/update is made (usually following a report at WP:ERRORS). This can be several times in one day or there might be nothing for a few days. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Main Page history is mostly complete since 2011 and shows what the ITN section looked like once per day (from a random sample of edits, at 11:20 UTC each day). BencherliteTalk 19:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That link is more-or-less what I am looking for. [same OP, new IP] :107.15.152.93 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

RD allowance for non-human beings
Obviously we have had that RFC that says that RD can include the deaths of any named living organism. That's fine, but we have an issue here with Stubbs the cat. I think the notability issues have been dealt with, but to me, I feel something is wrong when we promote the death of a pet or other non-human over actual RDs of humans, when we're in a midst of several RD postings and nominations. If RD was slow, I wouldn't see a problem, but right at this time, that's an issue.

This might be better left to treat as an IAR and doesn't need codifying, but I would like to suggest that we recognize that non-human RDs should not take any priority from human ones, for the most part. In other words, strictly only for non-human RDs ones can one offer to oppose if they feel this would disrupt current and ongoing RD nominations in the queue. There may be rare rare cases where the non-human gets significant attention that their value towards the world is as good as a human, and we'd keep it as an RD, but that's even more of an IAR case.

This approach definitely should not apply to human RDs at all, as then we'd start getting into importance and worth of a person, which is what the last RD change was meant to eliminate. --M ASEM (t) 19:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Seeing as the iPod Nano nom was snow-closed, I think we should make it explicit that non-living items cannot be listed under RD. Sorry Paint & Flash. I'm actually surprised that said it isn't already policy that non-living items cannot be listed in RD. The criteria clearly states "This does not apply to species (or higher taxonomic groupings) or non-living entities." Thryduulf can you amend the wording? Banedon (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC) On a different topic, what if one of the following happens: I feel like #1 should not be passed since Brittania is not a real person, just a personification. #2 is debatable though. If a blurb doesn't pass, all five articles would take up more space than is available. What do people think? Banedon (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "take priority from" a human? RDs are assessed only on article quality, and when they are judged to be of sufficient standard they are posted in chronological order and stay until they are 7 days old or there are four more recent deaths. There is no "priority" that can be taken, whether by human or animal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The priority is that because RD only has 4 slots, posting the RD of an animal on the proper date will still push an RD of a human faster off the list if there are many RDs happening in a short period (as there are right now). That's the priority issue. --M ASEM (t) 19:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is a human more important than an animal? If you want a particular person to stay on RD longer then just make sure their article is in good shape quickly so it gets posted with little delay. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why is a human more important than an animal" shouldn't need to be answered. We're an encyclopedia and we're documenting human accomplishments, whereas when we cover animals, it's more about how humans used them, rather than the animal going out to succeed itself (being non-sapient). --M ASEM (t) 19:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think animals are quite capable of sapience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And when Mister Peabody dies, we will approve his RD. But Snooty and Stubbs lived their entire lives as ordinary animals while humans danced around them.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be simpler to just modify the current RD guidelines to remove automatic RD for notable animals and plants. Basically I suggest that for plants and animals we go back to the old system where each nomination is judged individually on its merits. We should leave the current RD guidelines in place for human beings who make up probably 99% of the RD nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose that if you want, but I disagree. If an individual of any species is notable enough for an article they are notable enough for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, start another RFC to remove the clause we added a few months back. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical, if we removed that part of the RFC then do we revert back to allowing RD noms for non-humans but require consensus on importance to post? --M ASEM (t) 19:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's my intention. Notable non-human living entities can still be nominated but they would require consensus to post in the same way we used to require for all RD nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good suggestion. I was not a fan of the automatic RD when it was introduced but I must say it works rather nicely most of the time, and in addition helps getting some articles improved faster than they would get otherwise. We should be somewhat more strict with the non-human entities, though. Hey, there was a chance we'd get Microsoft Paint on these pages, but apparently it's not happening ;) --Tone 20:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm prepping the Adobe Flash for 2020 already. :) --M ASEM (t) 20:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died… is pretty explicit already. --LukeSurlt c 06:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The "individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died" wording relates to who/what gets an automatic entry on RD (subject to update, article quality, not being nominated for deletion, actually being in the news) but does not prohibit other articles, subject to consensus - cf. the other discussion on this page atm about humans without a standalone article. The policy is the result of consensus, not my say so, so I cannot just change the wording. Anybody can propose a change to the policy, so if you want non-living entities to be explicitly prohibited then propose that. I don't think there is a need so will not be proposing that myself. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That and the fact that non-living things by definition cannot die and as Recent Deaths covers deaths, I also see little need to specify non-living things are excluded. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the way I read it, current policy already makes it explicit that non-living entities cannot be listed in RD. Since you didn't read it that way, I suggested you to fix the wording so we both come to the same conclusions when we read it. I'd fix it myself, except I don't know how. Banedon (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it doesn't say that. Non-living entities can be RD, they just don't have automatic inclusion insurance if if the article is of proper quality and the "death" in the news. The wording is not exclusive, it's inclusive only for a specific type of RD. --M ASEM (t) 13:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what we should change, no? If the iPod Nano nom is any precedent, non-living entities cannot be RD. Banedon (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No one has actually proposed that (that non-living "deaths" can never be posted as RD), though clearly I think to get a non-living "death" through to RD is going to be a clear exceptional case (more than likely the "death" of a non-living is likely better as a blurb and that's going to require a stronger consensus). The RD rules currently work find for this reason. --M ASEM (t) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Scotland votes for independence, RD nom: Brittania
 * 2) Melanie Brown, Melanie Chisholm, Emma Bunton, Geri Halliwell and Victoria Beckham get on a plane together, which crashes and they all die. RD nom: Spice Girls
 * There was a case within the last year or so of a helicopter crash that took the lives of three notable athletes, and because of that, it was a blurb, not separate RDs. There was a association football team too that we noted in a blurb that way too, iirc... --M ASEM (t) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * These aren't decisions that can be made by evaluating imaginary scenarios. When unusual scenarios happen we can hash it out at ITN/C. It's impossible to have rules, codes, or guidelines to cover everything that might be thrown ITN's way because, by definition, future news is unpredictable. --LukeSurlt c 13:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is devolving somewhat, as Luke says. Should odd or extraordinary circumstances occur, we can talk it over.  Unusual occurences can be dealt with by the community without needing to indoctrinate some kind of "one size fits all" criterion.  That's just a waste of time.  To the point: since only the living can die, this whole discussion is moot and can now be closed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Gujarat flood
The ITN/c of 26 July was marked ready but archived without posting or closing without explanation. Why?--Nizil (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Archiving is done automatically by bot as soon as the day is >7 days old, regardless of the status of the nominations within it. As for why it was marked ready but not posted the most likely reason is that no admin looking to see whether anything needed posting spotted that it was ready. If something has been marked ready for a while but not been posted you can try pinging an admin you believe to be currently active to alert them - this isn't always going to work (e.g. I was pinged the other day just as I went offline and so didn't see it for about 10ish hours the other day. If the ping hasn't worked then you could try posting a note on this page (but don't do this until it has been marked as ready for a long while already so the effectiveness is not reduced). Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * can be posted still? --Nizil (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Instead of closing
Instead of closing nominations when they are deemed too stubby, wouldn't it make more sense for other editors to try to expand the nominated articles? I am not saying this because it just happened to me, but if Wikipedia is to be a collaborative work in progress, this should be helpful to everyone. Can we please agree to do this in future?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that nominations for which corrections are suggested should NOT be closed, so as to give editors who are interested a chance to fix them. That being said, if you have fixed an article and substantially improved it, AFTER you have done that, feel free to re-open the nomination and note your fixes.  No one would object to re-opening a closed nomination if the article has been substantially improved.  I wouldn't do so if nothing has changed, but if there's something else to evaluate, re-open it.  Still, I do agree that when article quality is the sole concern with a nomination, that it shouldn't be closed.  Nothing is to be gained by that.  Closing should be reserved for articles that have zero chance of posting, and if the objections are only quality related, then there's always opportunity for someone who cares to fix it up.  -- Jayron 32 16:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) Can you provide an example of this occurring? I probably missed it but I don't see such an example on ITNC currently. I would agree with what Jayron says above, though. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just there. I am not taking this personally--my point is that whenever I create new articles or even expand existing articles, I expect other editors to expand them too--that's what's fun about Wikipedia--so closing nominations like this one seems counter-productive. I hope other editors like the article and expand it! Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Record breaking
Apparently we don't post stories which appear in the news, but which are just "incremental record breaking". The term "incremental" seems to be tied to some definition of time, not amount or degree of the record. Could we have some kind of agreed description of what "incremental" means? Does it vary between types of record? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The exception is soccer records. We post record goals kicked in a world cup, record goals kicked in a calendar year, record trades for players. Soccer records always go up. I unsuccessfully petitioned to have soccer records added to ITN/R for this very reason. As for the rest, let me save everyone the trouble: "we don't need more rules and decide each item on a case by case basis based on consensus and if you think a story should be posted nominate it". There, that's the boiler plate answer used to justify most of the absurdity at ITN. You're welcome. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, why are they an exception? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Soccer is the most important sport in the world - it's the most important thing in the world - everyone cares about soccer, so no matter how trivial the soccer record, it goes up. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thanks. But my actual question was "what does incremental mean?" Even if we promise never to write it down, I'd still like to know. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You know "incremental" is contextual. That's why we have to discuss it.  We can't "define" it universally (e.g. very simply, a change of 0.2s in the 100m WR is different from a 0.2s change in the 1,500m WR).  You know this, you're way more intelligent than this question seems to demonstrate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what "incremental" means in the current discussion on the "Despacito" YouTube video. Without some kind of objective measure, it starts to look like ""incremental" is just|:a fancy word for subjectIve "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Go ahead and define it every time. That's fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have in this case, the last record-breaker was 25 days ago, it wasn't posted, and this is no different. Next question.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No one forces you to come here if you find this so absurd. The door is thataway...... 331dot (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No,, you're mistaken. When did we post "record goals kicked in a world cup" at ITN? When did we see "record goals kicked in a calendar year" posted to the main page?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, his calendar year record was nominated but not posted, his single season record was posted and Klose word cup scoring record was posted as a separate blurb before the final when it was merged. So I was mistaken, there is at least one soccer record which wasn't posted. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So one that wasn't posted, one that was, one which was only posted on the basis it would then be merged with the (ITN/R) World Cup Final result, and the Neymar story. So, really, two and a half ITNs ... in five years.  If you're trying to make a point that we're overdoing the football record stories here, it's not really exactly working.  We've almost certainly posted more athletics records (I know, for example, that we posted Usain Bolt records alone at least three times). Black Kite (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that "we post too much football stories" or "community consensus wasn't followed", but rather community consensus is broken. This is pretty transparently bias manifesting itself, yet the the people who voted for it can't see it. It's what makes me think we should remove ITN. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems to be an argument to end Wikipedia as a whole, since virtually everything here functions on consensus. Also see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out that numerous soccer records have gone up, and in no case did anyone exclaim "but it's incremental!". So the incremental argument is invalid, or there is a very strong pro-soccer bias at ITN - or both. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do believe we have posted record-breaking performances iff they are tied to a ITNR type event.
 * That said we also just posted the Neymar thing based on it being a record-breaking amount, so we do need some consistency here. --M ASEM (t) 22:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "When did we post "record goals kicked in a world cup" at ITN?". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said it was world cup, just a ITN sporting event. And the one that I could find easily was  (marathon record time associated with a ITRN marathon race). --M ASEM  (t) 23:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe we did post Miroslav Klose's World Cup goals record, but it was tacked onto the blurb for the 2014 World Cup final, so it wasn't an extra ITN item. I can't think of any other example of this happening for football. (Edit: see above) Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Placed into context, this is about YouTube streams, we suddenly have a spate of records of "most-viewed YouTube video" ever. The first time this was posted it was rejected, the second (25 days later) is at ITNC but seemingly doomed to fail.  The problem with "incremental" is that it's absolutely contextual.  What we shouldn't do is to curtail discussion at ITNC by attempting to perversely prescribe a ready reckoner of "what's an ITN-worthy incremental gain in this field".  So, to the OP, no we can't agree on that.  And that is why we have a community discussion about such items.  Trivia can always be discarded to DYK.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A spate of two, yes? Who want's to curtail anything? The context is YouTube video watches - so what does "incremental mean"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Martin, I'm not sure what you really want from this. Some kind of objective rule on incremental gains? Some kind of specific ruling on YouTube video view records? I think what surprises me the most is that I know you know this is trivial nonsense yet you're set to 11 on the dial. Very odd. However, in answer to your questions: Yes, No-one. Incremental means "whatever change to the record that the community deems notable". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just suggesting that, without some objective definition, "incremental" is just completely subjective, in whatever context you care to use it. The rule that you've now told us applies (above), to YouTube views, is "any record that is broken within 25 days". Thanks for clearing that up. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bizarre interpretation, but whatever you think, it matters little because all ITNC needs is a community consensus, and there's no way an objective definition of incremental could ever happen. You're clever enough to know that, so I guess this is all one of your fun exercises. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You gave a very clear answer above. Then you said "next question", but there isn't one. If no-one disagrees with you, then I guess you have defined a community consensus. It's not a "fun exercise" of any kind, as far as I can see. It's asking for some clarity. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Martin, you like playing games, and you're doing it again. You already know it's impossible to define "incremental" unilaterally.  This discussion is a waste of (my and the community's) time, but feel free to continue discussing it with yourself.  Enjoy! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing any game, thanks. (especially soccer or cricket, of course). I'm asking a perfectly fair question. I hope other editors will be slightly less dismissive and condescending. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC) p.s. top tip: if you think this is a waste of your time, just don't respond.


 * "Incremental" can refer to records broken frequently, to records broken regularly, to records broken by a small amount (absolute) and/or a small amount (proportionally). It all depends on the context of the record in question (how significant is it, how arbitrary is it, how easy is it to break, etc), the circumstances in which it was broken, how significant the margin of breaking is, and how likely it is to be broken again by a similar amount (absolute or proportionally) and/or in a similar amount of time. Absolutely none of these can be defined objectively in a general case as there are infinitely many records in an infinite number of fields. Please suggest your criteria for what counts as a significant breaking of all of the following records: number of views of a video on a website, number of people in space simultaneously, fastest steam locomotive, smoothest sphere, oldest deciphered writing, most populous settlement, baby with the highest birth weight, fastest woman hurdler over 400 metres at an Olympic games, number of transistors on a single computer chip, largest pizza, shortest time taken to visit every tram stop in Frankfurt, youngest female Aboriginal Australian to reach the summit of Mount Everest without oxygen, longest time survived inside the crater of an active volcano, longest duration continuous note played on a bugle, oldest orang utan living in captivity, edits made to the Swahili Wiktionary in a 24-hour period. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At least to me, any records based principally on monetary value or viewership/popularity are ones we should avoid. There is inflation and monetary value is always increasing, and same with human population, so these numbers will go up indefinitely. On the other hand, sports records based on the extent of human ability have a much slower curve and approach to asymptotic (eg no one is going to run a 1 minute mile), so recognized improved records make sense. Archaeological finds are similar, in that there is a practical limit how far back these records will be found. Thus it makes sense when we have confirmed "record" breaking in these areas, but not necessarily for monetary/popularity aspects. --M ASEM  (t) 01:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is impossible to define "incremental" in a useful way for all possible uses (which seems very likely), then I'd suggest "incremental" should be defined for use on a case-by-case basis. I was suggesting that we start with YouTube views, so that we'll know how to deal with the next nomination, which of course may well be only 25 days away (allegedly). I'm just suggesting this to save time and allow the process to be, or at least be seen to be, more objective. But TRM has kindly told us above what it is in this case - it's 25 days. And no-one, so far, disagrees. In theory, articles on records should be easy to handle, even if in practice they turn out to be rubbish, like this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Subjectively, what I would consider a notable for a record of YouTube views would be a video gaining an order of magnitude more confirmed human views than any other. Less than that I will vote oppose unless there are other reasons for notability and newsworthiness beyond the total number of confirmed human views. Now, would you like to answer my question. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So, until we get any sources that illustrate what are "confirmed human views", this kind of YouTube record is off the table. Yes, I'd like to answer your question, but I can't answer it, because it's impossible to answer, as I think you'd agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My question is actually more answerable than your original one - I'm asked for what you would consider incremental to mean in the case of those specific records. You want a single agreed definition of what "incremental" means for all records. As for the Youtube views, that's my subjective opinion but contrary to what multiple people seem to have thought recently, ITN works on consensus not just what I think (and I'm rather glad about that actually!). Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did want that. But after your challenging list, I've given up. I wanted a definition for just the one case in hand. And TRM has kindly provided it.Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)