Wikipedia talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rewrite the expectations[edit]

When I proposed an ITN item yesterday about a significant volcanic eruption, I expected to see a positive response and for it to be posted to the Main Page quite quickly (within a few hours at most). After all, it's a significant event that affects quite a lot of people here, and it led to a new article. It is a mainstream news item, and I'd updated the article with well-referenced information about its status. It's a case of 5k people evaluated, and 100+ homes destroyed. However, I was astonished to see so many people voting "Wait", and appalled to see comments like "Wait until death count becomes clear", and "no demonstrable impact beyond any run-of-the-mill storm or bushfires that never get posted".

Meanwhile, ITN currently says that "Former President of Algeria Abdelaziz Bouteflika (pictured) dies at the age of 84.", "SpaceX launches Inspiration4, the first all-civilian orbital spaceflight.", "The United States, United Kingdom and Australia sign a security pact that will provide Australia with nuclear submarines.", "British tennis player Emma Raducanu wins the US Open, becoming the first qualifier to win a Grand Slam title." and "In Gaelic football, Tyrone win the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, defeating Mayo in the final." All of which, I'm sure, is important to someone - but are they really more 'in the news' than a volcanic eruption? Do we really rate death counts, politics, and sports as more important than natural phenomenon?

The rules at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Criteria need to be more clearly written to explain voter expectations. If a volcanic eruption isn't enough, please say so more clearly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

There are natural as well as human-caused disasters that happen all the time on a daily basis (like floods, hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, earthquakes, wildfires, etc.) that cause significant property damage but where for reasons there's been otherwise little to no loss of life; ITN clearly doesn't have room to cover all of those cases, and hence why we want to wait to see if the effects are beyond just physical damage and if it is major loss of life or other secondary effects. --Masem (t) 23:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
As is often the case on WP, results can vary depending on the participants at a given time. Application of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a factor.—Bagumba (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It's understood, though rarely spoken, that a significant number of people who are passionate about an article or a subject matter can sway the discussion on ITN by way of turnout. It's up to the posting admin to weigh that, of course, and most of the time they do. But there have been notable exceptions where, as Bagumba has said, the consensus is judged by whomever is awake to participate in the discussion. I've called for a more objective set of standards for years, but have been repeatedly told that's not how consensus works. So here we are. WaltCip-(talk) 15:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
And a significant number of people who are passionate can squash a nom too.—Bagumba (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Do you mean it's an old boy network, where if you have enough wiki-friends you can get your way, rather than being based on criteria? Hopefully not! Anyhow, I was just using this case as an example - the important point is that Wikipedia:In_the_news#Criteria needs to be better written to explain what is and isn't likely to be accepted (I can't do this myself, since I don't know the answer - hence this message to try to encourage you to do so!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Most of the "sports" things are from Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items where there is a standing consensus on what should be included - for everything else, yup it is quite subjective, but not just on who shows up, if it has been a slow new cycle topics with less impact are more likely to be accepted - if there are a lot of recent large events it is less likely that something prominent would be bumped for a low impact topic. This could be considered a feature though, not a problem. — xaosflux Talk 13:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Even with ITNR we don't follow our own logic, though. We have a "standing consensus" because years ago one person proposed adding and no one opposed. To remove today requires 70-80% approval. We've set up a system where even if the majority of people think something is broken and want to fix it, we cannot! GreatCaesarsGhost 15:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm also woeful. A guy can serve one day in the Ohio House of Representatives, or a gal can place 21st in the 1956 Olympic long jump and get an article, regardless of general notability requirements black chemist women face. Of course that favouritism is going to corrupt everything beneath it, as it has. And of course there's nothing the majority of normal readers can do but grumble. But I'll Strong Support any attempt to get popularly interesting newsworthy things, like natural wonders and beloved entertainers, the same special treatment unpictured footballers and unfamiliar MPs get, either by building cool habits up or tearing old ones down, futile or not. Just say when, I'm not a starter! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I agree that for newcomers to the process, it can be surprising that their favourite topics aren't immediately embraced by a community who have been inundated with mass shootings, plane crashes, bombs, and The Boat Race. There are no doubt countless examples of injustice, subjective to a degree, but I guess nominators need to realise that their candidates are assessed in the context on what has gone before. In your case Mike, I think a volcanic eruption which (at the time) had caused little concern, no deaths, limited destruction, was being assessed in terms of other natural disasters where hundreds of thousands were displaced, tens/hundreds killed etc. Your other issues relate in part to WP:ITNR, and like it or not, sporting events are popular on Wikpedia. Dead former presidents, space flight, and a huge spat over submarines, are all perfectly apt as far as I can tell, to an encyclopedic view of the world. I guess if you want immediate success in posting any story about any natural phenomenon (which ranks pretty low in all objective counts), then ITN isn't the place, better off working at Wikinews or WikiTribune or even a foreign-language Wikipedia were standards for inclusion are much more "flexible" and story churn is much higher. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the answer, and that's all fine - but my point stands that Wikipedia:In_the_news#Criteria needs to *explain* this - at least by giving some examples. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Does it though? The community is fully entitled to vote however they see fit. We had several people voting in favour of posting a non-biographical article about a murder victim, contrary to all norms here. People are not disallowed from doing so. I'm not sure what kinds of "examples" you're looking for. The only way to understand the context at ITN is to research recent voting patterns and community expectations, that's not something you can indoctrinate in a few "examples". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@The Rambling Man: Think of the example of a newbie to the process (like me ;-) - but not my specific case) thinking that something might be suitable, and wanting to know if it would be worthwhile proposing. Should they really have to go write a paper on voting patterns and community expectations first, rather than looking at the help pages? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Like I said, I can't think of how that works when each and every item is based on a community discussion. We used to post just about every mass shooting in the US but over the last few years the community has either changed or adopted a fresh approach which means we don't just knee-jerk. That's a trend. What example do you think it needed? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
FWIW, I added a brief statement in the section on Significance to point to the ITNC archives, since this is usually the best place to get an idea of how the Significance criteria work out. It is no means perfect, but it is better that editors understand the patterns that typically fall out of that to get at what nominations usually gain consensus to post and what do not. It is nearly impossible to otherwise work out the highly subjective rules that I think we all have different interpretations of, so it's just best to show what we've done in the past to get a flavor for new candidates. --Masem (t) 06:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@The Rambling Man: Again, that sounds like something that's good to explain on the help page, that's a good example. And thanks @Masem: for adding that text to the page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
(I'm unwatching this page now - please ping me if there are further comments! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC))[]
@Mike Peel: The eruption is still worth watching and so I've nominated it again. "80% of success is showing up". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For the record, the article was posted to ITN ongoing on 2 Oct and then removed on 10 Oct after 28 minutes of no discussion on the erroneous grounds that the article was not being updated. It thus lasted at ITN for 8 days. Meanwhile, the eruption continues to be in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • The removal was 100% correct. Yes, the eruption is still going , but the article had no significant updates about the eruption in the last several days, and part of ongoing is that the article is being updated frequently to stay at ongoing. --Masem (t) 13:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • There was more than sufficient evidence that the article wasn't being updated satisfactorily. Honestly, this is tiring. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For the record, it was restored to Ongoing on 11 Oct. There was no further discussion at WP:ITN/C but there was another section about this below. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Expo 2020[edit]

I'm surprised Expo 2020 got posted. The article could use a good copyedit, and there are multiple statements that seem a little dated. Let's look at the Organization section as a sample:

  • Dubai has also been emphasizing investments in various sectors such as economic growth, real estate, environmental avenues and public affairs. In recent times, Dubai has made major investments in real estate[6] and has introduced the world's largest solar power project, planned to begin by the start of Expo 2020. -- The part about the world's largest solar power project has been in the article for years. Has it actually begun? (Also, these two sentences repeat the same information about real estate investments.)
  • The city of Dubai is also keen on giving equal prominence to public relationships. -- What does this mean? How are "equal prominence" and "public relationships" being defined?
  • The initiative, titled the Dubai Happiness Agenda, has 16 programmes under four themes that sum up 82 projects to be set in the city with an aim to make the city the happiest by 2020. --It's 2021. Where does Dubai rank in happiness now?

Let's look at the Preparations section, as well. All of the references are from 2019 or earlier, so we're just bypassing COVID entirely.

  • The upcoming Expo 2020 means that most premium hotels will be operating near full capacity through to 2021. -- "through to 2021" from what starting date? Is this even true now? Surely COVID had some impact.
  • Benjamin Moore Middle East is focussed on the UAE's luxury hospitality segment as the moment. By helping hotels upgrade the paints and coatings they use to more durable products, while simultaneously helping them reduce their maintenance costs. -- Poor writing, undue weight relative to the size of the section, and arguably promotional.

User:Andrew Davidson raised some other issues, that weren't adequately addressed. Zagalejo (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

WP:SOFIXIT.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's not a helpful response. Isn't the whole point of ITN to vet articles for quality beforehand? I'm just baffled by the culture of ITN. The standards are so inconsistent. Zagalejo (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The standards seem pretty straight forward to me. As many of us have pointed out before, it's based on a consensus of editors regarding whether it is suitable for posting to the main page. You should feel free to make any revisions and corrections that need to be made to the article after the fact. But as Masem said, none of those corrections are such that the page needs to be pulled from ITN. WaltCip-(talk) 16:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
These observations are great, but they belong at Talk:Expo 2020, not here. If there is concern that community consensus hasn't been correctly observed, that's a different matter altogether. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I started the discussion here because I am interested in the vetting process itself. Zagalejo (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It's like all of the rest of Wikipedia. Community consensus is what gets stuff promoted to the main page. This article is no different to all the other articles other than its WP:ITNR status, disruptively overlooked by some. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The one really actionable thing to me would have been the COVID stuff, but there is a section on the COVID impact. It's proseline, and not the best, but its there so its covering that factor and not absent. The other points are small matters that aren't impacting the basic tenets of why the Expo is an ITN item --Masem (t) 16:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
For the record, this isn’t meant to be a comprehensive review of the article. I’ve only read a few sections of it. Zagalejo (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Regarding the dates and timing, note that the article was created in 2008 – these things have a long lead time! That was over 13 years ago and the original author did not edit after that year. But the passage of time means that you can't really trust anything that it says. For example, the infobox says that the next specialized expo will be in Buenos Aires in 2023. But it won't because it has been cancelled. It's like the older FAs that that are being run now as they scrape the barrel – they were done over 10 years ago, haven't been kept up-to-date and so don't pass close inspection. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
By all means do something about it rather than simply making observations from the sideline. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Remove World's Fairs from ITNR[edit]

Removed. Consensus is pretty clear on this one. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Let's put our money where our mouth is. Summarizing the arguments on ITN, Expo 2017 and Expo 2015 failed to be posted due to lack of article updates, and reasonably one could correlate inactivity with a lack of significance. Many of the numbers that were used to demonstrate notability of the Expo were inflated, such as the "25 million visitor" mark as Andrew Davidson outlined in the nomination. In recent years, the significance of the World's Fair is fading, as are the attendance numbers, and you will find somewhat limited news coverage as they have mostly become regional commerce exercises for the host nation. In addition, they also don't hold the public imagination and attention as much as other recurring global events such as the Olympic Games. From a subjective standpoint, it is hard to justify this event's continued notability.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Remove as I felt the last time this came up. World's fairs or expos are less important now in our world of instant communication and easy travel. Removing from ITNR does not preclude a regular nomination should there be a reason to post an expo. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove my opinion hasn't changed since this was last nominated for removal. Hopefully this time we can get a suitable closure. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove I don't see why they should get an automatic notability pass, judging by the relative lack of coverage and attention they seem to be getting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove. Quite frankly these events are not in the news and get scant if any coverage. Removal from ITNR would not prevent future expos from being posted through the normal process. (For those curious, this was discussed in 2015 and consensus seemed to be leaning toward removal; the discussion was never properly closed, however.) -- Calidum 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove. These events used to be a big deal, but these days they get a WP:ROUTINE mention in the newspapers when they open, and that's it. Nobody seems to care otherwise, and our articles don't provide much interesting information - mostly just lists of who is attending (Expo 2020 has a bit more, but a lot of it is about Covid impacts). We can safely retire this. Modest Genius talk 15:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove from what I saw, the only reason people supported its inclusion is because it's ITNR. But this isn't automatically front page-worthy content, given that most newspapers don't give it any significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove Tend to agree these no longer have the same worldwide importance in the age of instance communications. --Masem (t) 16:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove On the basis of infrequent nomination/improvement at ITN. But I would like to draw everyone's attention to the other ITNR removal nom just above. Apart from the Anglosphere appeal, how are those arguments for keep not applicable to this nomination? Say what you might of the declining import of trade shows, at least countries actually compete and want to host them. (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nobel Prize winners[edit]

I'd like to encourage discussion on improving the way we post the Nobel Prize winners. Our standard practice established long time ago is to post a separate blurb for each field, which often makes ITN a Nobel Prize ticker during the second week of October. I can list the following options for improvement that come to my mind (including a status quo):

  • Option 1: Do nothing and leave it as it is with a separate blurb for each field.
  • Option 2: Combine the winners in multiple fields into one blurb.
  • Option 3: Keep only one blurb for the most recently announced field that has replaced the previous one and add a link to Other Nobel Prizes in parentheses after the blurb (see how it is done on the German Wikipedia).
  • Option 4: Add Nobel Prizes as a separate item to ongoing with expanded update in the year's article that includes the contributions for which the prizes were awarded after the names of their recipients.

As four out of the six prizes this year have already been awarded, we can start off from next year in case we agree to change something.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Option 1. Option 2 just combines everything into one large blurb, which doesn't really solve anything. Option 3 assumes timely postings which doesn't always happen. Option 4 would make Ongoing too ungainly. I don't think there is a problem to solve here. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 I don't see a problem here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 If it was only 1 person per aware, Option 2 might work, but often the Nobels are jointly awarded to 2 or even 3, and then the blurb gets impossibly long. --Masem (t) 20:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, sort of. I in general oppose nominating each Nobel Prize as a separate ITN piece for the same reasons we don't do the same for the winners of the Olympic Games, or the listing of UNESCO sites. We can simply reduce that to an ongoing event about giving out Nobel Prizes, because anyway awarding Nobel Prizes in each of the disciplines takes some time (a week or so). I don't think we need a separate blurb for each Nobel Prize laureate unless a good reason can be provided to make an exception for this particular person/these particular people.
As for the link choice for ongoing event, oddly I'd choose the relevant template so that people can choose the people (or disciplines) from there. It gives just enough quick information: who, in which area, the countries the people represent, as well as the choice to move to the earlier years. The specific reason for which the award was given should be somewhere in the lead for each Nobel laureate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I don't like option 3 because there is no guarantee that the previous award articles were ready before the most recent award articles. Option 2 doesn't really save space. Considering that it took most of a week for the Olympics to be in good enough state this year to be posted, I don't think option 4 works either. I am not sure that I like the status quo, but awards will get posted or not based on how updated the articles of the recipients are. This year we just have a couple laureates whose articles were pretty bad to start with. Rockphed (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1. Though not the best solution, I think the current solution is the best that we can. Unless there is a quick way to create a demarcation and listing (tabular or otherwise) of categories and winners against each of them. Ktin (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1. Even the situation right now shows that posting all of them is not excessive. Physics has not (yet?) been posted because the articles are not ready, and there are other items than just the prizes. With a decent turnaround, we have a diverse ITN. But even if the week is otherwise slow, we have some things to post. I don't see a problem. --Tone 19:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 is the only practical option. Not every prize is announced every year, and we don't know until they have all been announced. Also I think it is a rare spotlight for many fields. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1; they don't all come out on the same day so its fine to have them all be separate blurbs. Many of the topics are also never posted to ITN so a short showcase is good.  Nixinova T  C   22:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 It's a newsworthy item in a field that is both significant and rarely in the news. I have no problem with the ITN box consisting entirely of Nobel Prizes for one week, because the Nobel Prizes are a big deal, and there's a dearth of science the rest of the year. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 if they did all get posted, it'd be a bit much, but typically only about 3 of them do. Having 3 Nobel Prize hooks in a short space of time is no different to when we sometimes have many disaster or sports hooks on ITN, as many ITNR events happened at the same time. Joseph2302 (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 or a template similar to the one we initially used for Covid. This year is an exception, but I prefer not to have a bunch of related items clogging up the template. -- Calidum 00:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 per above. SpencerT•C 19:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, sort of. In Sweden, the time of the prize announcements is known as Nobelprisveckan "Nobel Prize Week". We kind of bunch them all up into one annual event. The link proposed by Szmenderowiecki seems like a good choice to me. The Nobel Prize Museum advertise it as Nobel Calling Stockholm. I think the Nobel Prize receives a disproportionate amount of attention these days. When it was instituted, prizes was as a way to help important research get published and shared. We hardly have the same issues these days. cart-Talk 10:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

What would it take for a boxing match to be posted again?[edit]

Although I personally do think the recent boxing matches were important enough to warrant inclusion, there's little to be gained by continuing this discussion. There are only two ways to get items included - to have them agreed at ITN/R, or to have them agreed via a discussion at ITN/C at the time they occur. This thread is neither of those things.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Just curious. What if the heavyweight unification bout never happens? We missed a bus? How many busses should we miss? What if nobody cares about that unification fight? Or we don't post boxing any longer? I know, not WP:TOP25, but I saw the argument that the UEFA Nations League got more interest than Fury-Wilder III, but as page views are concerned, LOL that's not even a contest. This piece of "non-news" outviews every boldfaced link in ITN. Fury-Wilder III is quite clearly, "The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN." Howard the Duck (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keeping in mind that ITN does not go by page views (otherwise we should be considering news about Squid Game to a degree), the problem with boxing is the lack of a regulated championship structure, and its hard to identify any individual match, even a popular/highly-viewed one, as "important" to the sport overall, whereas its easy to say something like the winning game at UEFA is such a case. Hence why the talk about heavyweight unification as the likely case where we'd post a boxing match again. --Masem (t) 14:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Masem, let's get this out of the way. Comparing actual boxing matches and the Squid Game is absurd. Do you agree? (I'd probably agree if this was professional wrestling's heavyweight championship.)
Pageviews are a replacement metric for actual newsiness. People here gatekeep what is their view on what the news is, without realizing, what actually the rest of world considers as news.
There's no guarantee that any future heavyweight unification fight, if it happens, will get the same interest such as this. That's just like kicking the can down the road with the premise that "I can still oppose this in the future with another argument". Howard the Duck (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If you bring up page views as a metric, then I'll point out why we don't use page views to judge. Readers to WP do not reflect the purpose of what WP is here to do. Yes, we should document things like major boxing fights as well as successful and popular TV shows for the purposes of an encyclopedia but that doesn't necessarily make them newsworthy items for the purposes of a global encyclopedia. Readers looking for news by going to WP's ITN box are in the very wrong place and website to start with. --Masem (t) 14:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pageviews. Jesus. Just replace ITN with TOP25. What a joke. Vagina gets more than 5,000 pageviews per day, Kim Kardashian averages more than 25k. If it's purely about "what people are clicking on" then right, let's go with that. And to set the record straight, there was no "comparison" with the Nations League, other than to say it was a single football match and it was significant and historically and encyclopedically notable and won't even be nominated, while people are going stupid for a boxing match (the third such) which was all about the money. Give me a break. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Isn't this just another cash grab on the part of UEFA?
"No again, according to UEFA, which states on its website that "finances are not a driver for the new competition".
In the next sentence though, it states that 'the competition will have the same centralized media rights as have recently been introduced for all European Qualifiers so associations will have even more stability in their income'."
Yeah, the Nations League was significant and historically and encyclopedically notable and was totally not a cash grab, while this one was totally for the money ;) Howard the Duck (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, I missed your point entirely. Did you even make one? Anyway, back to your regular programme where you bring up the Boat Race, Martin tries to make some jokes and Inediblehulk shows up later to add some glitter to the proceedings. This has been an amazing debate, but ultimately, the point remains, it's community consensus on significance unless you want to nominate an ITNR for "championship boxing bouts". Otherwise, move on and get on with your life. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Razzle dazzle, poof! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah. Yeah, who needs vaginas when you've got Kims? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, much love to the peanut gallery. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I added quality broadsheet sources to the ITN nomination to show it wasn't just "red-top tabloids" that are reporting this. And the notion that we can't post sporting fixtures if they make some people lots of money? Hmmm. But much love to all Boat Race people. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If you bothered reading, I didn't suggest at any point that it was "only red-top tabloids reporting this". Please, next time, bring some useful contributions here, you're off your game. You're clearly missing your comedy partner. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I read everything at that (quite brief) nomination. You suggested that Wikipedia would be a "red-top" for posting this? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I did. I didn't say that only red tops were posting it. But the extent to which certain people want to post "chip shop newspaper" here today, gone tomorrow news stories based on page views is a purist red-top proclivity. As you know. I realise you're here for the lulz, but I also realise you're very clever, and you know this. But plus ca change I suppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If we restricted to never posting stuff that was "here today, gone tomorrow", in news media reporting terms, I suspect the ITN box would be even more out of date than it is now. And, of course, we'd be a day later with posting anything (but no big deal there, I suppose). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No-one's restricting anything. This is a community-led project with community-led decisions. In these cases, the community thought posting either bout to be inappropriate. This entire thread here is "interesting" but adds literally nothing. Either world championship bouts get an ITNR listing, or we listen to our community. Move on. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, of course. I have to wait for tomorrow's peanut bingo, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No, not at all. You seem very submissive. I wouldn't deign to tell you what to do. In fact, if you'd read that post, I said it was about me giving up on the usual crap for the day, in the absolute knowledge that it'd all pick up again tomorrow with more TOP25 and ICANTHEARYOU and your sniggering. So be my guest, continue. I'm ashamed that allowed myself to be distracted from actually doing something reasonably useful around here after saying that. Thanks for the reminder. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Shucks yeah, if only I bothered to read things. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That would be ideal. But no problem. We'll no doubt go again tomorrow. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Phew! If I ever recover, of course. Martinevans123 (Keep wearing them down) 17:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah I suppose some of your attempt at comedy relies on the idea that the links you litter the place with actually work. Never mind. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It still doesn't work Martin. Perhaps just don't bother trying to be funny? It's not worked very well lately, in fact it's becoming a bit third-rate. And it's not "wearng", it's "wearing". Which is a perfect description of your attempts at humour, so ironically, well done you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry the link doesn't work for you. It's fine my end. Maybe you're in one of those "no humour" dead zones on the internet? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Maybe Martin, maybe. Or just maybe your kind of posts aren't helpful. I've tried three or four times now, and it's showing as an HTTP 403 error. But you've already learnt these kinds of links are more for Reddit than Wikpiedia. Hopefully one day you'll relocate to there and be their humorist as you're failing to be constructive or humorous here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Their what? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Out of curiosity, when is the last time a boxing story was posted or even nominated? -- Calidum 14:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Possibly death, before the 10th round (unless there was s split decision). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, both the Fury result and the Usyk result should have been posted, not a shadow of a doubt about it. These are international sporting events between professionals at the elite-end of a highly-watched sport. I'm not a boxing fan myself, and yes as purist I can see it would be better from a logical point of view if there was an organised championship, but that's immaterial here. The world regards these as the real deal and therefore so should we. The arguments used to vote these down have been laughable, frankly.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Community consensus is what is needed. Personally, I find these (in particular Fury v Wilder III) to be distasteful shadows of the sport, designed to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and certainly in the most recent case, just for a single belt. But in summary, as I would vote against basically run of the mill Champions League football matches being posted, I'd vote against run of the mill boxing matches. The idea that "heavyweight" makes it somehow more important, or that it's "Europe" vs "America" or whatever is (for me) frankly laughable... If we posted every world title bout, we might as well rename it ITBN.  ;) The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • No one's asking to post every world title bout, just the most notable world championship ones. For comparison, we post eight non-world tennis championships. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Unfortunately this is the inevitable result of a sport that has deconstructed its own structure to the point where the word "champion" is effectively meaningless. Three of the major weight categories currently have four different belt holders. And I don't see an argument for the heavyweight division being treated any differently from the others, either. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Regrettably that's true. But it was a great fight. Great beards too. Perhaps the next re-unification fight will be worth posting? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Football has greater fragmentation but there are numerous football events listed at ITN/R. Let's count them:
  1. AFL Grand Final
  2. AFC Asian Cup
  3. Africa Cup of Nations
  4. All-Ireland Senior Football Championship
  5. Bundesliga
  6. Copa América
  7. Copa Libertadores
  8. European Rugby Champions Cup
  9. FIFA Women's World Cup
  10. FIFA World Cup
  11. Grey Cup
  12. La Liga
  13. National Rugby League
  14. Premier League
  15. Rugby League World Cup
  16. Rugby World Cup
  17. Six Nations Championship
  18. Super Bowl
  19. Super League
  20. Super Rugby
  21. The Rugby Championship
  22. UEFA Champions League
  23. UEFA European Championship
That's 23 while boxing has zero. This is obviously imbalanced and so fails WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
NPOV does not require that we give equal time to all sports in ITNR. We're not talking about ITNR here. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Goodness me. You think rugby football is the same sport as football? Like e.g. boxing and tiddlywinks? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It fails NPOV? I think this is now getting into the territory of WP:TROLL. Presumably Andrew Davidson has an alternative proposal (I'm assuming good faith) or else he is simply trying to goad the project and should be banned from continuing to do so. If this behaviour continues, I will not hesitate to make such a proposal at WP:ANI because the endless WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour has to end at some point. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'd have thought it's fairly clear that it fails NPOV, specifically WP:BALANCE, which requires us to cover subjects in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, rather than according to the whims of our editors. For whatever reason Wikipedians have decided that these boxing events aren't "important" enough compared to football events, even though they're clearly of great interest to our readers and appear in all the newspapers. I know Mr Davidson does like to dabble in unusual points of view at times, but I don't think he's so far wide of the mark on this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(And before you say it, let me get there first, I'm well aware that we have some editorial control over the main page, so it's not entirely subject to the usual balance policies that apply to articles, but even so this one is extremely disproportionate).  — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"Mr Davidson" is perfectly entitled to nominate subjects for ITNR and nominate subjects for removal from ITNR. But all I see is just a continual whinging about it not being to his taste. It's tiring and boring, which I think he knows, and as such, if it continues given the avenues available, I'll be taking it to ANI for a topic ban. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
PS Balance here isn't about the encyclopedic coverage, it's about the coverage in articles. I'm unaware of a "Wikipedia-wide" guideline which claims "balance". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
True, but I think people would expect us to have some kind of standards for what to post. Do you think that if we decided to focus all our ITN efforts on stories such as this one, that would be consistent with our mission as long as everyone at ITN/C was happy with it?  — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't, but Andrew Davidson would probably advocate for it if it made Lauren Goodger part of WP:TOP25. And that's part of the problem of this recent slew of tabloid popularism. If Andrew Davidson or others want a news ticker, then Wikinews is the place. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, apart from the fact that this list of 23 sports contains six completely different sports ... good grief. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Andrew is quite clearly trolling here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
IMO, if the article is fully expanded and has a good explanation of why the match is notable, I am definitely willing to support it (Including Fury Wilder III). However, in this case, the article is nowhere near the quality needed for a competitive nomination. I think a case-by-case basis is worthwhile, but articles without good updates or explaining the notability do the nominations no favors. SpencerT•C 19:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Tyson Fury vs. Deontay Wilder III should more than satisfy ITN requirements... unless you are looking for details on undercard matches. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The community didn't think it was encyclopedically worthy. Move on folks. It was a single boxing match, the third such match-up in recent history, and it didn't change much. Next. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Nice article, Howard. Looks like a film already. Thanks for sharing that. Apparently we have articles about single boat races. They even get to the main page. It must be the world-wide coverage they attract (and the quality of the writing, of course). Or maybe they just get they a free pass every year? Not sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed with Martin; that is a uniformly excellent article. WaltCip-(talk) 20:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Good (or excellent) articles should be nominated at WP:GAN or WP:FAC. I have a lot of experience at both, so feel free to ask me for advice for either process. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh, and Martinevans123 if you don't "like" the Boat Race being at ITNR, nominate it for removal. Stop sniping about it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think they're great. Just as good as Tyson Fury vs. Deontay Wilder III. Maybe less exciting, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I lost good money on Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury II, and I remember nominating this specific fight before. It turns out this article also is great. We've missed posting two great articles because... boxing. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Marvellous insight guys. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Tyson Fury is still outperforming the ITN blurbs and so our readers are not missing out too badly. But, thinking about it, boxing has another structural issue which tends to bias ITN against it. ITN/R is, by definition, mostly for routine events which take place on a regular, repetitive schedule. Football has lots of these – the various annual leagues and cup contests – and so they are comparatively easy to list at ITN/R, as we see above. But boxing is a more dangerous sport and so its big fights depend upon the availability and fitness of contenders. And at the top heavyweight champion level, there seem to be few serious contenders. So, as ITN/R introduces a systemic bias, it should be reconsidered. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I get that people have different perspectives but I think you greatly misunderstand a lot of things about ITN in general, or at least think it should be something very different than it is(focused more to be a top-read article ticker and not to highlight articles about events that are in the news irrespective of readership, and to encourage readership). Perhaps that is what has motivated your recent participation, but I digress. This, for example- ITNR isn't about systemic bias. It's a list of topics that have general agreement to be posted on the merits, meaning only the update needs to be judged. If you want to see the heavyweight belt or belts added to ITNR, I await your proposal along with evidence that these topics are in the news and merit posting every time. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • (edit conflict) If there was only one heavyweight belt, even if the matches were not regularly scheduled, I think we would not have an issue to have each bout that involved potential transfer of that belt to be an ITNR. But right now there's four different organizations managing what are the ranks of boxes, and thus four different heavyweight belts. And given how frequently these can occur between all four, that's a bit too much for ITNR. If there was a way to say, "okay, we're only going to consider the WBC belt to be the big one" and thus the only one to feature at ITNR, that would be something, but I don't think that any of the four orgs have any more influence over the others (eg compared to say the NFL vs the XFL when that existed, the NFL was the clear dominant entity to feature at ITNR). --Masem (t) 14:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Personally, I'm not asking just the WBC heavyweight belt, not all four world championship heavyweight belts (look, like I said, we post 8 non-world tennis championships), just the random fight, heavyweight or not, that appears to be more notable than the run of the mill championship fights. Before COVID championship fights happen everywhere weekly. We're not posting a random flyweight bout in Thailand, just as we're not posting to ITN the Squid Game or any of the Kardashians' vaginas. This doesn't happen every year, or there can be multiple instances of that in a year. The best boxers fight twice a year max. This is not golf where they play every month for most of the year. There's always this one big fight that's different from all the others. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Are there agreed criteria on which the WBC is deemed to be more notable than the other three? And we're just talking about the heavyweight belt, yes? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • No. Boxing media usually know who among the champions is the better one, and that's not usually restricted to any one promotion. That's why we have boxing pound for pound rankings. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • The most respectable of the boxing rankings seems to be the TBRB which has been explicitly constructed to be free of promotional bias. They have Tyson Fury as the current heavyweight champion and this could be used as the basis for an ITN/R entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
            • Boxing was previously at ITNR. I moved for its removal because as stated "Major fights that receive significant coverage, to be judged case by case. An example from 2009 is Ricky Hatton vs. Manny Pacquiao." it wasn't helpful. ITNR is supposed not to be as per "case by case basis." I'd oppose limiting listing to just heavyweight fights. For most of the 21st century, the lower divisions have been raking in the money. It's the rise of the rivalry between Wilder and Fury did the heavyweight division started to be noticed again. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
So are you proposing that we'd simply post whichever fight involved the current "best boxer", at any given weight, according to those tables? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If you're asking me, not necessarily. If the best boxer is fighting and no one cares is that in the news? This is why we can never put boxing in ITNR in its current format.
I think someone would have to care lol, i.e. there would need to be "significant news coverage". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The article about this specific boxing fight outviewed every article in ITN by a clear margin, yet people still argued no one cared, and people actually believed that. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Let's all drop the strawman that if we list one boxing match, we'd list all boxing fights on all divisions on all belts... or that boxing championship fights are like the Squid Game or Kim Kardashian's vagina. I would've personally batted for us to be very selective on this. We wouldn't list at most 3 per year, on some years we won't list anything. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm willing to confirm that, for me at least, boxing championship fights are not like Kim Kardashian's vagina. Not from this distance anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"Not from where I'm standing." WaltCip-(talk) 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
At UFC 43, Joe Rogan called Marvin Eastman's gash like he saw it, "a goat's vagina". Flash forward to the future, Jake Paul has dethroned Kardashian as the GOAT of reality TV, and is set to fist Vitor Belfort, the man who birthed that goat's vagina, for $30 million. I bet we post that freakshow, so will vote Support proactively (pending article fix and cleanup, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I would have included this fight on the basis of the wide coverage that it received in sources, in part because the fight itself (in addition to being a title defense) was one of those described as a "fight for the ages". Some high-level fights are boring duds. Some low-level fights are masterful contests. This fight was both at a high level, and caught on as a great example of the sport. BD2412 T 06:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
And as before, boxing matches will get posted if the community consensus is in its favour. It clearly wasn't in this case. If there's a case to be made for certain matches to be listed at ITNR, please do so, otherwise this discussion is somewhat moot as unless ITNR, every match will be judged on its merits. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When/why do items get removed from 'Ongoing', and how to restore them?[edit]

I just saw that @PFHLai: removed 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption yesterday, citing "remove due to lack of updates in article". The eruption is very much ongoing, and the page has been edited daily - although the last clear update of the status was on the 9th. As a general question, how does 'Ongoing' work - is an update mentioning the specific day required? Why isn't there a notification to the article talk page that the link might be removed soon? How can this item be restored to Ongoing - does it have to go through a whole new nomination again? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oh my god. We've discussed this ALL DAY. There's no doubt there's an ongoing news issue, but contrary to the false claims, there was no substantial update to the article. Why are we re-hashing the same discussion again and again? It will need to be renominated now with evidence that it has been satisfactorily updated. And if it isn't maintained, it will be removed again. One editor even provided a decent "diff" of the substantial changes. It was one sentence in five days. The sooner people learn to read the criteria, the better. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @The Rambling Man: What? Where were we discussing the volcanic eruption today - did I miss something? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Per Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section, "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information.". SpencerT•C 19:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Your input certainly would have been appreciated during the discussion to remove the item from ongoing. In fact, you still can provide input. The nomination has not yet been closed even though the removal has been completed. Doing an end-run of the process via WT:ITN is not the way to go about it.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @WaltCip: What, where? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Double-checking Talk:2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption - nothing there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Its happening at both the ITNC entry for the removal, and on this page at #Rewrite the expectations (which is not clear it is about that now). --Masem (t) 19:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    (ec) Andrew Davidson appeared to make an objection both at the nomination and in a section at this talk page above. If there's a mechanism failure which is resulting in this apparent confusion, perhaps we should deal with that as well. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • To speak specifically, while there have been edits on the eruption article, the bulk of them have been wikignoming, vandalism handling, or otherwise nothing to update the actual news about the eruption. The only major expansion was the part about the statement about making it a tourism sightseeing thing and reaction to that, which is minor compared to the actual event. Ongoing events we anticipate updates on a near-daily basis to offset the need to have a blurb in the ITN box every day; doesn't mean an update must be made each day, but if there's nothing to update for 4-5 days or no one updates in that period, that's a problem. --Masem (t) 19:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    What "ITNC entry for the removal"? I gave up on #Rewrite the expectations last month. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Mike, what do you need here? The item was removed because it wasn't updated. Regardless of whether it was "in the news", nobody, including the people now complaining about it, updated the article properly. That's a pretty simple principle. What more do you think you need to understand why this has happened? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @The Rambling Man: A simple notice on the article talk page would have been enough. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm sure. By all means get a bot to do that. Link it to ITN nominations. In the mean time we're all humans and it works how it works. In this instance, it worked just fine, as per normal. And if something needs to get re-posted, it can do that by the normal means as well. Or are you expecting all interested parties to somehow be instantly messaged when these things change? A "WATCHLIST" is useful there.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @The Rambling Man: I've coded up scripts that have made over 8 million bot edits so far. I'm happy to do so for more tasks. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I've restored this to Ongoing. There are now two new paragraphs on what happened the past four days. Let's keep this article updated, or the link to this article should not stay at Ongoing. --PFHLai (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Well bloody hurrah. It'll stop the whining masses hopefully. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @PFHLai: Gracias! Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You're welcome, Mike. Please help with the coverage and keep the page updated. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment there is no obligation for the contributors at ITN/C to ping the talk page of an article to say "hey, you've not kept this updated we might remove it". The guidelines are clear and work fine. On top of that, I provided a content diff showing that the article was stale. By every actual measure, the article was not suitable for posting on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nobel Prizes[edit]

Each year we post all the Nobel prizes and the winners on ITN as they are announced and they take up a considerable part of ITN then. Should we keep it that way, or is it time to instead just put "Nobel Prize Week" (or something) in the 'Ongoing' section during the time they are announced? (To clarify: The time of the announcements is known as Nobelprisveckan "Nobel Prize Week" in Sweden. We kind of bunch them all up.) cart-Talk 09:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

W.carter Please see the discussion on this topic further up the page; you are welcome to contribute. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, I missed that one and started thinking out loud here. cart-Talk 09:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Lowering the significance bar[edit]

I'm sympathetic to concerns that were brought up in the "William Shatner goes to space" nomination in ITN/C, about how ITN - a page that purports to display topics and articles that are "in the news" - is not actually covering the news. Granted, this is not a news ticker, but our high barrier for entry in terms of significance has been a recurring complaint among both newcomers and regular contributors to ITN/C. This has always been a subjective exercise that relies on local consensus, although there is some level of precedence involved as well (though two wrongs don't make a right, etc.). What would it take to lower that barrier of entry? WaltCip-(talk) 12:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

"But... Kim Karadashian's vagina!!!" Howard the Duck (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Said only you. Once again, great insight. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I was just actually thinking we need something under significance to point out that ITN doesn't really accept (based on past consensus) stories covering "popular" topics, even if they are widely covered by news media, as this is part of where our function as an encyclopedia (to cover a global range of topics with enduring factors) compared to newspapers (to cover anything they can to fill 24/7 channels) drastically differs. To me, nearly all "popular" topics (those in the TOP25) because they are in the news are things that are better suited for a DYK-style approach (eg Shatner being the oldest space passenger, or Squid Game being Netflix's most watched show, etc.). We also have to remember that Portal:Current events is linked from the ITN, and that will cover these topics (Shatner's flight covered in Oct 13's entry appropriately). Perhaps to that end, the fact that the current main page template masks that current events link with "Ongoing" as a type of Easter Egg may not be helpful - I'd think I'd rather just see "Other current events" to link to that portal so that topics that don't make it to ITN still will be one link away. --Masem (t) 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • So, one of the things that is the Wikipedia ethos is "it's not what you believe or can argue, it's what you can show through reliable sources." That is, we don't care about reasons. We don't care about beliefs. Everyone has reasons for things. What we care about it what can you demonstrate through reliable sources. As long as we define the types of sources (such as what sorts of news articles, what sorts of news sources, etc.) we generally look to to determine significance (I.E. not celebrity gossip or the like), it's very simple to decide significance. We don't really have to even care why such sources are covering a story. Just that they are should be enough to know that a topic is in the news. Our primary concern should always be is the article of sufficient quality. We should not consider the ITN ticker to exist to tell people about news. We should consider the ITN ticker to be a place to go to get more information on stories people are already hearing about outside of Wikipedia. We assess that by looking at what high quality, serious news sources are reporting. It's the easy part of our job. The hard part is assessing and improving articles so they are of a high enough quality to put on the main page. --Jayron32 14:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's seldom used, but WP:ITNCRIT already offers an alternative to "significance": Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion. However, it doesn't seem the Shatner blurb would meet that either.—Bagumba (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I can safely say I have never seen an instance in which a less significant article is posted to the main page on the basis of being well-written or even a GA. That may technically exist as criteria, but it's purely theoretical and rarely seen in practice. That may need to be refactored. WaltCip-(talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It is rare, but it's usually a borderline significant topic that some people say post for notability, while a few other people just say it's a quality article that's timely, so go ahead.—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here, at least not yet. We need to better abide by the stated purposes of ITN. The #1 stated purpose is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." US networks interrupted their programming to report on Shatner's flight. They don't do that lightly and yet people say "it's not important" and not enduring. If it's not enduring encyclopedic coverage it should be proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Not really, space flights are generally accepted as notable by Wikipedia. That Shatner was one of a bunch of other tourists that went up (for less than ten minutes!) is somewhat trivial. Nothing deserves to be deleted, we don't have William Shatner in space or anything, not that I'm aware of... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Which US networks? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I think the "content they are likely to be searching for" clause is now being (regularly) conflated with pageviews or WP:TOP25-style content. It is relatively easy to confuse the two I suppose, but if were simply to post on this clause alone, we'd be a US news ticker, posting all manner of triviality (like old man in space), simply because "people are looking for it" and "we have a half-decent article covering the event". The reason the community consensus is vital is to add a checkpoint in to remind everyone this is an encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Twitter or some other unrefined trivia publisher. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It seems funny that you keep bringing up an article we didn't post on the main page as an example of where relying on reliable sources went awry. --Jayron32 16:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Which article did I bring up? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Oh, that's right. I didn't. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Nope. Changing the bar won't help here. The thing with Shatner is that some editors felt that it was more important than an election in Yugoslavia, and some editors felt it was less important than "Squid Game becomes Netflix's most popular original show." User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • We have guidelines that say quality updates are the point, because we are trying to encourage people to build the encyclopedia. We can accept a minor update if the event is really significant, but we can also post a less important event with a bigger update. Take the Boat Race for instance. There is a big difference of opinion on significance, but the quality of update there is undeniable. It is completely possible to compose a new article or make a truly significant update to a current article for an otherwise "trivial" event and get it posted. You may find it difficult to find enough info in RS for truly trivial events to populate a significant update, but this is a feature not a bug. If you can make this look like this, I'll vote for you. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Other Current Events[edit]

I want to start a separate discussion section for Masem's recommendation from above. I like this one and I support it. Should be a small and easy fix.

Context: Portal:Current events is currently linked from the ITN box, but, is currently linked underneath "Ongoing" making it almost seem like an Easter egg.

Suggestion: A clearly labeled link from ITN to "Other current events" will aid discovery of the Current Events portal.

Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support doesn't seem unreasonable and might help the news tickerites chill out for a few months. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - oh yes, look at that. I didn't even know there was a link there. Could be in a much more useful place.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support, but note that if Current Events gets more traffic, people may need to watch out for vandalism on the subpages that transclude onto it, as they are mostly, if not all, unprotected.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Didn't this used to be the case? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yes. We already have this behaviour when there are no ongoing events, a link to Other recent events appears next to Nominate an article, but, because we've had Covid in ongoing for months, it hasn't appeared for a long time. Also, when there are no recent deaths, the Recent deaths link moves down to the same row, but it's unlikely to happen now, given the assumption of notability that we have now. So all we're asking here is to always show the link, and possible change it to Other current events. Stephen 22:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. As next steps, in my view, one of the following two options can be tried. Option 1: Replace the Ongoing word with Other current events. Option 2: Introduce a new line with Other current events phrase linking to to current events portal. Option 1 might be the simplest to execute. Ktin (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Just when I remember last looking at the template, if there are no ongoing events, the "Ongoing" label changes to something else which complicates that option. I would recommend this Option 2 here, a fixed "Other Current Events" which could be on the same line that "Nominate an Article" sits on, and would be non-disruptive to other parts of the template. --Masem (t) 01:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      @Masem:. If I am reading Stephen's note correct, it seems like when there are no ongoing events, the current template will default to adding a link to Other recent events next to Nominate an article. So, we should be covered there. So, when there are ongoing events, just changing that label to Other current events will solve the problem. Yes, in this case the link will not be in the same level as Nominate an article, but, renaming also solves the problem of what do with the Ongoing link if in case we go to a new line for all scenarios. Ktin (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Bibliographies/discographies/other -ographies and RDs[edit]

I've noticed recently, eg at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Gary_Paulsen, two related trends: (1) editors frequently spin off lengthy -ographies of RDs into standalone -ography articles; and (2) other editors regard this as bad form where the original -ography was unsourced or poorly sourced. I can sort of see the objection if the thought is that editors are trying to game the system by getting rid of a poorly sourced portion of an article so that the remaining biography is ready to post. But I also don't really understand this because the new -ography article can simply be tagged to oblivion without forcing editors to go through the incredibly dull (and, IMO, mostly pointless) work of sourcing the -ography (to a ref that is almost always a site like AllMusic that's not much better than a database) before the article can be posted as an RD. I figured it would be best to settle this in some broader forum so a consensus on whether WP:SPLITting -ographies pre-RD is OK. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Basically, even ignoring ITN, an unsourced -ogrophy violates BLP. Splitting it off just to make the RD ready to post doesn't solve the BLP issue that existed before. Its fine if a reliable site like Allmusic is used (in contrast to IMDB which is user-generated) but it just needs to be done, split or not. --Masem (t) 02:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment Most recent case I recall was Michael K. Williams' nom. Seems to come up at least every month or two.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Unacceptable For many candidate at RD, the 'ography sections are the reason they have a Wikipedia page at all. Actors, musicians, photographers, writers , etc. are known for their works. Incidental episodes of celebrity might also fill out their BLP, but those episodes arise because they have works. Excluding their list of works for the sake of posting an RD (and then leaving the SPLIT to languish) turns RD into little more than a superficial human interest obituary. Fine for People, but rather poor form for an encyclopedia. (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The road to hell
  1. If a person is famous and in the news, the readers will be reading their articles regardless
  2. If a person is obscure, then posting their names at RD isn't going to make much difference because it's just a name with no context
  3. WP:V has always made it quite clear that sources are only required for quotations or facts that are controversial. We do not require a source to say that Robert Vaughn appeared in The Man from Uncle – one of many stars who was not listed at RD because their list of credits was too long.
  4. If people are actively destroying content for this reason then RD is disruptive and should be terminated forthwith.
  5. Our policy is clear: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them."
  6. See also bureaucratic inertia, busywork, jobsworth, red tape, &c.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • WP:V requires sourcing for all material outside of the most non-contestible material like "The sky is blue". For a typical filmography, while leading roles are rarely the problem (these can easily be verified at official databases and most movie reviews), it is the minor and cameo roles in smaller or niche films and TV shows that are the part that are far more difficult to verify, and that's where most of these lists break down in terms of sources, and WP:V 100% applies to requiring sources there. It is just a long-term problem that editors that work on these types of pages have typically forgone sourcing in adding roles and works when crafting these pages in the past so that when they hit ITN/RD, it becomes a marathon to try to fix in time, but that's not ITN's problem, those articles are BLP-violations without those sources throughout. --Masem (t) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Unacceptable these should only be spun off if the article is too long, and the standalone article is acceptable as an independent article, as per WP:SPLIT. Moving the content just because it's unsourced so that the article can be on RD is not acceptable, and we should be applying a zero tolerance policy to this gaming of the system. And, contrary to the comments above, the problem is editors gaming a system, not the RD system itself. RD is a simple process- all you have to do is source the article for it to be on the front page, it isn't that difficult and people trying to take shortcuts to the most simple process for main page content is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Consider the OP's case of Gary Paulsen. This author wrote over 200 books and so listing them all would be contrary to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Most of our readers only read the lead of an article. Few of them will read through a list of 200 book titles. And just about nobody will read citations for those 200 titles. See diminishing returns. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • We should have a selected bibliography then for e.g. just the most famous/notable ones. I've never understood why we need to list 100+ books written by someone, or all their film/tv appearances. If someone wants that, there are database websites for that. But moving it all onto another unsourced page just to try and fufil RD requirements is not the solution to the problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • The problem is that people are treating this as a matter of box ticking rather than doing what's actually important – fact checking. I checked a detail of the Gary Paulsen story – that his mother beat a man to death. This had a citation but I found that it didn't stand up. Citations ≠ accuracy. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • To be fair, the editor that spun it off did so hours before the RD was nominated, and has not commented at the ITNC nom either. Some works are already mentioned in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • If one spins out the -ographies, then a selected works should still be left and that still needs to be sourced. --Masem (t) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • @Masem: Is mention in prose scattered throughout the biography sufficient, or do you expect a formal bibliography entry for each select work?—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
            • Technically, that should be okay, but if the prose is already sourced, it should be trivial using named references to repeat the sourcing. A larger issue with "selected works" that I generally have seen is the fighting by editors of what are the representative selective works, and here is usually where on death for an actor, it may be wiser to pull an obit that lists the dozen-some films they were most notable for, if that's possible, so that we're not using editor preference for that list. Either way, sourcing that list should be trivial because that sourcing should already exist in the body somewhere. --Masem (t) 12:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I tried this already, it went nowhere --LaserLegs (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    No comment on the merits of either proposal, but this current one is specifically about spun out -ographies, while the earlier one was about any spin out.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A BLP that spins off the -ography is fine if the prose covers their works sufficiently in the view of the consensus of editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Moot - creation of content forks is not something which is within the remit of ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    In practice, however, RD noms where an -ography gets spun out (often?) can held up with charges of gaming the system.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    What I'm saying is that this place has (nor should have) any say whatsoever on when elements of an article get spun out. It's nothing to do with ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I disagree, WP:In the news#Article quality says that Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. I would say that removing an entire bibliography/filmography, and leaving nothing in the article leaves that article incomplete, and is omitting a major item. If people want to split it out, at least leave a summary in the main article of most important works. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You're absolutely right, but that mandate you quote to evaluate quality covers all sorts of things enumerated in policy or not. Too much focus in this conversation is on the intent and timing of the fork. A fork is not in and of itself an issue of concern, but a fork could leave the main article insufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    If editors are spinning out an -ography for a bio page that is far below any critical SIZE issue for length (even considering that the -ograph is not part of the included readable prose), just to avoid the sourcing issue while the bio is up at ITNC, that's a problem of sweeping the dirt under the rug and does not represent our best work. That absolutely makes it our problem. --Masem (t) 13:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Not at all. Admins should simply not promote articles whose content has been unsuitably. The spin-off should simply be restored back to the main article by any reasonably competent editor. This is not an ITNC issue, this is a Wikipedia issue that happens to be one method to try to circumvent quality standards at a project page. If we can't trust admins to exercise judgement in this regard then perhaps we should re-visit who is able to modify the main page content. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. In my mind, there are two categories of articles that are relevant to this conversation. Category 1: Where the prose of the article references the subject's career in sufficient depth. e.g. Vivek (actor), S P Balasubramaniam. Category 2: Where the prose of the article (by itself) does not do any justice to the number of works. e.g. Nedumudi Venu. I come closest in my thinking to user:GreatCaesarsGhost here in that for Category 1, I can see why a spinoff might be justified, allegations of gaming the system aside. For articles in category 2, either the tabular listing of works stays within the article or the prose is sufficiently beefed up to reference the works. That aside, having seen this process for sometime now, not using IMDB has led to the usage of other sub-par sourcing I also agree that this is not WP:ITN's problem per se. But, unfortunately, when it comes to us, we hold the mantle in cleaning up these articles (and rightly so) if we have to bring to homepage levels of hygiene. Ktin (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Then perhaps add an instruction to the promotion guidelines which recommend an admin check that unnecessary content forks haven't been made as a result of the ITNC. That'll do it. There's literally no other remit this project has than that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Right. In my view, even that is not needed. Forks imo are not inappropriate (though I have not done that so far) for articles that fall under category 1. Forks should not be attempted for articles that fall under category 2. Just keeping that information with us as we review articles should suffice. Ktin (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Splitting articles for any reason is nothing to do with WP:ITNC. Promoting articles to the main page is an aspect of ITNC. I propose that we add a bullet to Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions, along the lines of:

Admins should check that no unnecessary content forking has taken place in articles before promoting them.

Nothing more is within the remit of the project. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment. Agree with the first statement i.e. splitting of articles for any reason has nothing to do with WP:ITNC. Also agree with the second statement i.e. Promoting articles to main page is an aspect of ITNC. Forks are not bad in articles that fall under category 1 (definition above), but, are bad when done for articles that fall under category 2 (definition above). So, if we are adding a comment it would be Admins should check that content forking that substantially lowers the article's coverage of the subject has not taken place in articles before promoting them. Ktin (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    No, I disagree. The rules on content forking are given, site-wide, at WP:CFORK. We don't need a confusing "substantially lowers...." clause. That's undermining the site-wide approach and is none of this project's business. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Fair enough. The more I think of it, even the statement on "Admins should check that no unecessary ..." is not needed. Ktin (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    So it just reads "content forking has taken place in articles before promoting them."? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    No no. I meant even adding this new statement (i.e. Admins should check that no unnecessary content forking has taken place in articles before promoting them.) is not needed. Lets just keep it simple as-is. Reviewers can distinguish between category 1 and category 2. Ktin (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Or maybe, the word that you have there "unecessary" is the operative word? Category 2 is considered "unecessary"? Ktin (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    All I'm saying is that ITN promotion guidelines are advice to admins. We can speak in English to them, I don't know what "category 1" and "category 2" etc mean here. I'm suggesting that we just include an aide memoire for admins to check that no stupid CFORK has been done before they promote anything. It's purely advisory because this project has literally no remit on whether another editor decides to CFORK something, we just have to be careful not to promote something that's shoddily CFORKed. Easy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I added a version of my idea and reverted it. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about with this odd "category 1" thing. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yup, I see your point on why this can be gnarly. I am ok with the text as in original, or with an updated one. But, I think I am with you on the fact that it should just be simple. Onwards and upwards. Ktin (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support I agree with the proposal as worded. I also agree that this is merely advice on the instructions to Admins for ITN, and not site-wide policy (which would be absurd). The discussion above mentioned that this happens about once a month, which is often enough to warrant a guideline to watch out for it. (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose This comes up enough among editors and !voters that guidance is needed on WP:ITN—not only WP:ITN/A—for !voters to reach consensus on their own. Admins should not be left to make a content decision, aside from obvious BLP, NPOV, or V policy violations. WP:CFORK is a guideline, not a policy, and I'd be wary of admins driving content requirements. "Unnecessary content forking" is quite subjective, and needs to be fleshed out more, esp. relative to the ITN process e.g. forks before ITNC, forks after ITNC nom, forks by people uninvolved with the nom, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    So your solution is to do nothing concrete? My proposal is just to augment the admin advice. Admins must be charged with making content decisions, imagine if ten people voted to support a BLP with obvious missing citations. That's down to the admin to not post it. That, I'm afraid, is the responsibility of adminship, like it or not (and I don't, but there you go). Oh and what happens after ITNC, that's a whole new ballgame. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Sorry, I meant after the ITNC nom. Corrected above with markup.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm not saying do nothing. I imagine some ITN/A updates are necessary, but they are not sufficient. The onus should be on the community through some TBD guidance on WP:ITN itself.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Not at all. In that case we'd need advice on WP:V, WP:RS, etc. That's what all the policy, guideline and essay pages are for. ITN is not a special case, it is utterly subservient to the Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    The point is to selectively highlight ITN minimum standards. For example, WP:ITNCRIT already has guidance related to content policies and guidelines such as: Updated content must be thoroughly referenced. As with all Wikipedia articles, citations must be to reliable sources ... References should be correctly formatted and not bare URLs ... Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link. CFORK expectations for ITN could fit in here too.—Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support as this comes under article quality, if article quality is insufficient then it shouldn't be posted, and content forks make the article incomplete. Whilst I think the ITN voters should be the ones opposing articles with unnecessary content forks, no harm in having admins check it too. And definitely good to have it as an enforceable rule. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Assuming an artist's works are already include elsewhere in their article, I don't see why a separate bibliography/filmography section in the same article would necessarily be needed. For longer lists of works, a separate article is preferable in that regard. This whole thing seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill; our guidelines aren't supposed to address every single little intricacy. -- Calidum 13:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    This isn't a suggestion to modify a guideline, just an advisory to admins to check that CFORK hasn't been violated in a attempt to game the system to get an ITN item posted. It's quite straightforward, but it appears to be confusing a lot of people. But frankly, my advice here was simply a way of curtailing a literally pointless discussion - content will be forked, and the world will keep turning. No-one reads the instructions, admins might read their advice page. But have it your way, and just allow the debate to roll on with no solution at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]