Wikipedia talk:In the news

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

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)
  • This is indeed a WP:EGG link when we have Ongoing items - especially as few items on P:CE are 'ongoing'. It's not exactly clear what is being proposed to fix this, but I would support modifying Template:In the news/footer so a link to 'current events' appears in the same row as 'nominate an article'. I oppose adding a whole new line for it. Modest Genius talk 18:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Request. Please can an Admin read the consensus and either update the text on the "ongoing" link OR add text on the same row as "nominate an article"? Thank. Ktin (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    Following up on this request to see if this is something an Admin can help with. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    Pardon my persistence. Tagging a few admins here to see if this is something they can help drive to closure. @Amakuru, MSGJ, Stephen, Spencer, and PFHLai:. Have a nice day everyone. Ktin (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Is there a sandbox mockup of the exact change that we want to be made? Don't want to change something and accidentally break the template. SpencerT•C 16:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    I've added editprotected so that this will get looked at. I suggest the easiest way to achieve this is to unlink Ongoing and always display the link to Other recent events on the bottom line. A mockup is in Template:In the news/sandbox if you would like to review. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks Martin MSGJ. This looks good to me. Would also want some of the more experienced folks to also chime in. Also, this change introduces a situation where 'ongoing' will be the first bolded text on the homepage that would not be a link. Would that create a weird usability issue? or am I overthinking this? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Is there something else you want "ongoing" to link to? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks Martin MSGJ. When you click on Portal:Current_events, on the RHS there is a panel called "Ongoing events" with subsections like disaster, economics, political events etc. Is that panel available in a page of some form? If so, that would be the best page to link to. Ktin (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    If that is not possible, linking to Portal:Current events/Sidebar is not a bad idea. Ktin (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Portal:Current_events/Sidebar#Ongoing_events and Portal:Current_events#Ongoing_events both work but it feels like we are linking for the sake of it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks Martin. I think the first one i.e. Portal:Current_events/Sidebar#Ongoing_events is better. Just do not want this Ongoing text to be the only one bold non linked text on the mainpage. Also, I think this is relevant to the text as well. Ktin (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Greetings Martin @MSGJ:. Following up on this one if you could help when you have a moment. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
     Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support seems reasonable to list it as that's where all current events are. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Not done (as to the immediate edit request) (a) there appears to be support to make a change, but exactly what that change will be seems to still be under discussion. (b) I'm not sure what the exact change (e.g. "Change wikitext X to Y on page Z") that is being requested now. Feel free to reactivate the edit request when discussion ends and a final exact edit is ready. — xaosflux Talk 15:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Noticed the change to the "Ongoing" link today, and thought it was a mistake until I found a link to this discussion. I now understand why the change was made, but I suggest that the target page for "Ongoing" be formatted similarly to the page for "Other recent events", if possible. Funcrunch (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree that linking to the sidebar looks awkward, mostly because the sidebar is not meant to be viewed as a page in itself, while Portal:Current events is. I would propose reverting "Ongoing" to link to Portal:Current events again. 93 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    The options appear to be:
    1. Rename Ongoing to Other current events and link to Portal:Current events. Then the extra link can be removed.
    2. Unlink Ongoing completely, leaving the link at the bottom.
    3. Duplicate the link. Both Ongoing and Other current events link to Portal:Current events.
    4. Link Ongoing to something else?
    — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks a ton Martin MSGJ. My preference is 1, 3, 4, and 2 in that order. Thanks again. Ktin (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    New code in Template:In the news/sandbox for review — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    And implemented — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks Martin. Looks good. Can we also run one test in Template:In the news/testcases to see how the template would behave when we have no ongoing articles? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    I've undone the rename of Ongoing, and the link to a sidebar as there was no consensus for either of these changes. Stephen 22:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Can we at least restore the link to "other recent events" for which consensus exists as can be noted above? Ktin (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:V and Election Articles[edit]

Currently at ITNC is the 2021 Japanese general election, and previously was the German federal election. These two articles highlight a problem with WP:V that is similar to the WP:SPIN issue that was discussed recently here. Essentially, tables are "sourced" to a secondary article not being reviewed for the Main Page in contravention to V:Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources.

In reference to the Japanese article, the section Opinion polls contains no real prose (what is present is more a caption) and two unsourced charts. These charts are, however, sourced in different article not being reviewed for the Main Page (and would never get posted). There is a helpful link in this article to the other article. My understanding is that WP:V strongly suggests that sourcing should be in-article, and the Main Page should feature high quality articles, thus articles under consideration here should have entirely in-article sourcing. I have not yet spot checked these tables to see if they actually do contain the information presented in the Main Page candidate.

A more troublesome example is the German election article. The table under Competing parties is totally without sourcing and appears to be WP:OR. Worse still, the table under Political parties and candidates is "sourced" to another wiki article, which is in turn circularly sourced right back to that WP:OR table. The final problem is that this made it to the Main Page.

  1. Should articles on the Main Page require in-article sourcing?
  2. If so, and if sourcing tables becomes cumbersome, should tables be removed from election articles? (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The bigger problem in my opinion is that many articles get posted to Wikipedia's front page which should not meet quality requirements, sometimes with more significant issues than what you've called out. For example, the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) article from the Japanese election blurb has multiple orange banners. The allowance seems to be that such articles are not bolded or non-target, but seems like a very minor difference that probably would not be noticed to a casual reader in many cases. The fact is the material is still there and promoted for public viewership, and only caring about the nominated articles is a pass that should be questioned. Either the quality should or should not be an issue, the difference in standards between 2 articles on the front page with different bolding should not be so stark. - Indefensible (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to apply the ITN standards for posting to all links in a blurb then please make a formal proposal to do so. The alternative is to not embolden anything other than the target article but that's probably not helpful to our readers. This, of course, isn't unique to ITN, and it would be meaningless to make such a proposal on only a subset of the main page, so you'd need the buy-in of TFA, DYK, TFL, and TFP too (and in the case of the last project, their target article is often full of maintenance tags, so you've got a lot of work to do there convincing them to change their approach – it's all about the picture!!). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
No snark - why is it unhelpful to our readers? If it's important to vet the bolded link, why does that reasoning not apply to others? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
It would be unhelpful to unlink all the other links in all the blurbs on the main page. And the reasoning doesn't apply to others I guess because they're not the target we're intending our audience to be clicking on directly from the main page. If you want an RFC to either remove all other links or enforce quality standards on all linked articles from the main page, in every section, I'd say go for it! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Unlinking all other non-bolding links would be particularly harmful for the TFA section, for example.
I would be fine within the scope of ITN that if one of the non-bolded blue linked articles is completely rife with issues to a point where one could almost apply WP:TNT to that article, that we either unlink or fix it, but that's going to be an exceptional case; we have enough issues usually making sure the bolded links are in shape. But I'm also one that if there are more relevant articles that can also be bolded (eg recently with the Booker Prize or the recent NYC Marathon, the two racers) with a relative minimal amount of work, then we should strive to do that. But otherwise the most effort should just be on the bolded target. --Masem (t) 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If sourcing the tables in the Japanese election article is something you think needs to be done, WP:SOFIXIT. No one here will stop you. The best person to fix anything in any Wikipedia article is always the person who wants it fixed. --Jayron32 16:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Dubious. Probably best person for this job would be a native Japanese reader who could locate the required sources. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, but they miss the two more important things that matter even more than that: They noticed the error and they care. Without those prerequisites, it doesn't matter. There are millions of people on Earth who meet your requirements, and yet if none of them notice the problem or care enough to want it fixed, then it doesn't get fixed. --Jayron32 13:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Removal of "The launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" from ITNR[edit]

Consensus to remove the crewed launches from ITNR. Individual launches can still be nominated and judged on their own merits. --Tone 14:26, 15 November 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.

This is based on a current ITNC but lets formalize this for removal: given that we now have commercial space flight operations, I would recommend that the current ITNR for "The launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" is no longer a major topic for ITN. This is not to say that no such launch cannot be posted to ITN, but it would have to go through a normal ITNC review. --Masem (t) 17:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • To add, if this fails, at least we can stamp a link to this in ITNR to demonstrate "status quo" no-conensus to keep for future debates. --Masem (t) 17:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. We've had the same number of manned spaceflights this year as we did in 1985, so it still appears to be quite an unusual and encyclopedic topic. Suggest revisit for removal in a year or two. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as in the ITNC discussion, this was unilaterally added without consensus to do so, as multiple discussion just fizzled out. There was not a consensus to add it, so it should be removed until such a time that there is a proper consensus to re-add it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Um, this is that discussion. You're supporting removal on "process" rather than substance? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    If there's no consensus to this discussion, it should be removed anyway, as it was added without discussion. And in the example on ITNC at the moment, just routine coverage, it isn't an earth-shattering voyage, so don't see why it's at all ITN-worthy. Which shows that they shouldn't be on ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not really, there's such a thing as silent consensus, and that it has been discussed a few times in the past decade with no consensus to remove it, then it seems fine to debate now whether it should be removed as a result of changing times and significance of space flights, rather than make this about whether it should be there to start with. This is how we've addressed dozens of other items that were added "back in the day" as they were deemed a good idea at the time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the launches of JWST and the first (few) manned lunar-orbit missions should be posted, but run-of-the-mill orbital launches should not. Perhaps "the first orbital launch by an organization" can stay ITNR if voters insist, but I'd handle them all case-by-case. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • We do still have "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" to cover that end point of a lunar mission, and of course if its a new craft, "The first and last launches of any type of rocket". And as I said, there still remains a route for ITNC for any oddities not covered in ITNR that seem important (eg if SpaceX should use the same launch system but to send a manned mission to the moon, the launch would not qualify as any ITNR but may be a potential ITNC on its own). --Masem (t) 18:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose total removal, but I would exclude shuttle flights to the ISS or any Earth orbiting space station. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • So something like "The launch of crewed orbital spaceflights, excluding sub-orbital flights and flights to Earth orbiting space stations" ? --Masem (t) 18:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think orbital flights that don't go to a station are likely doing something notable(like the last non-ISS Space Shuttle mission that serviced the Hubble telescope). 331dot (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
And I specified Earth orbiting stations due to Lunar Gateway. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
We definitely don't want to cover every routine flight to Space Station 5. --Masem (t) 19:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal – Each of the increasingly frequent space missions should be judged on its merits, like most other occurrences are. We are effectively gatekeepers in the world of events, which is what our readers expect of us. – Sca (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal From what I understand, the number of annual ISS missions has been the same(4) since 2010. So I don't think it has become more frequent or commonplace in the last decade to warrant a removal. Scaramouche33 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    I wasn't talking about only ISS missions. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support There's clearly no general consensus for these routine flights and it seems that there never has been. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal, judge individual flights on own merits. This is what the alt proposals are basically about, we just don't need to go so much into details for ITNR purposes. Obviously flights to the Moon will make it to ITN, until they become routine (not any time soon, probably). --Tone 11:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I've been trying to get routine ISS crew rotations taken off ITNR since 2010. They're just not that notable, get only WP:ROUTINE media coverage, and there's never enough information to write a substantial article. I still think that crewed launches beyond LEO (like the planned Artemis flights) will be obviously notable when they occur, so could optionally remain on ITNR. Otherwise, this can all be left to ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 11:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
This would seem to be consistent with my proposal below. Do you feel that all orbital flights should be removed? Just seeking clarity. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Not the same as your proposal (which would exclude Shenzhou 12 but not Inspiration4), and I don't want to add even more options to this discussion. I do think that some crewed spaceflights are worth posting, but the majority of LEO cases are not. There are clearly differences of opinion on exactly where to draw the line, so let's take them off ITNR and just discuss on ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 13:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal in lieu of ALT proposal below.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Some trips are bigger news than others, all becoming commoner, suborbital or not. Judge them on their own "oomph", just like everything. No special treatment. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Full Removal I feel even amending the criteria might not even be necessary. Truly monumental spaceflight moments likely don't need certain defined criteria to be posted (somewhat borrowing from Hulk here). I agree that the flights to stations like the ISS shouldn't be listed, but I also can't say that any other spaceflight certainly IS. To me, only #3 to #5 in space exploration alone should deserve automatic inclusion. Anything else I think we can judge for ourselves. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal crewed flights of this nature are now sufficiently routine that, individually, they are not assuredly notable. ITNR is not appropriate for this. LukeSurl t c 08:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal, as it is clear that some spaceflights are now routine enough that they don't rise to ITN's standards. I wish ITN would loosen its standards, but if they are what they are, they should be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal and supporting first alt proposal below, with explanation below. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal as the real issue is space tourism which can be dealt with in one of the alt proposals.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT proposal: Replace with modification[edit]

I'm going to bring back my proposal from last year. Replace "the launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" with:

  • The first and last launches of any type of spacecraft in crewed orbital spaceflights.
  • The first crewed docking to an orbital space station by any type of spacecraft.

The other bullet points remain unchanged. -- KTC (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose as the original proposal is better, and having multiple proposals simultaneously just increases the change of getting no consensus on this issue again. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as opposed to ditching the whole thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support particularly since crewed orbital launches are going to become more frequent in the years to come, not less frequent; but we still should not require a notability litmus test for anything that is literally the first of its kind.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this wording. These are very specific criteria that would be best left to ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 13:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral I'd rather get rid of the entry completely, but if consensus prefers a more targeted version this wording is fine. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as far as I can see, the primary concern is that certain launches (space tourism) are becoming a bit too common. This proposal eliminates the space tourism (aside from the landmark first and last launch) while preserving what we've had for years. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support My thinking aligns with NorthernFalcon. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT2 proposal: Amend criterion[edit]

  • I mention it above, but I propose amending "the launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" to add "except flights to Earth orbiting space stations" instead of total removal. If a flight is not going to the ISS or other station, it's likely doing something of note. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this limitation. BD2412 T 01:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the original proposal is better, and having multiple proposals simultaneously just increases the change of getting no consensus on this issue again. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as opposed to ditching the whole thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this wording, which would exclude Shenzhou 12 but not Inspiration4 - the opposite of their significance. See above for my preferred solution. Modest Genius talk 13:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I digress but the first staffing of a station would likely pass ITNC, and I don't think the Insp4 flight("the first orbital spaceflight with only private citizens aboard") should have been excluded. If it's not notable it should be proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose if we're automatically posting, we should be more certain than "likely" that it is doing something of note. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


This is becoming a bit of a mess. First proposal is to remove it altogether, the next is to make one amendment, the third a different amendment. It would probably be better to have an actual discussion about it before suggesting proposal after proposal. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Most "discussions" involving you quickly devolve into name-calling and unrelated asides. And FWIW, support total removal from ITN/R. Most launches are barely newsworthy at all, much less worthy of ITN, and people are still free to nominate individual launches on ITN/C. As it stands, a lot of articles with little importance or substance are making it onto the main page. -- Kicking222 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    Kicking222 please provide diffs with "name-calling" or else retract your WP:ASPERSIONS. And this is not the place to vote, this is a place for comment (hence the heading). I await the removal of your personal attack (and from an "admin"!). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    You literally used "ass well you know" in an edit summary on this very thread. You call people snobs on four different occasions in what's currently viewable at WT:FAC. Your tone in discussions like this is absurd, whether or not you're correct (and in that instance, I'd agree with you on wording). You belittle people whenever possible, and for examples of that, just look at pretty much any contentious ITN candidate.
I'll have no further part in this discussion. The previous paragraph was 5-10 minutes I'll never get back; I've already wasted too much of my time on it. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
"ass" typo. Snobs, I was correct and will stand by it. Freetown, correct again. Brilliant. Some admin you are. Be glad to see the back of you once we get the admin retention rules tightened up. Absurd is you still claim that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kicking222: I second the call from TRM to remove your personal attack ASAP. WaltCip-(talk) 13:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'll third that, though I suggest that the fact that Kicking222 is still an admin is more related to the fact our policies for removal of the bit through inactivity are not fit for purpose, since they haven't used it for eight years. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    TRM called me a muppet about seven times in the last month or so, all at ITN/C. I'm not complaining, but I'm also not pretending it never happened. Anyway, yeah, one thing at a time! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    As you know indelible, it was a passionate comparison to your and Martin's recurring comedy routines which are reminiscent of Statler and Waldorf. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    And how many times did I insist I wasn't even kidding? That's the whole root evil with name-calling; the attacker sees some resemblance in a victim and has the passion to shout it out. Just use our usernames, and focus on the topic, OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, if you promise to stop trying to add "humour" to just about every topic. Comparing those contributions to the peanut gallery is hardly name-calling. Besides, I love those guys. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    You swear I'm failing at "humour" when I'm merely trying to be serious, so compare me to muppets you think are continually funny? If so, I can't promise anything. If you love those guys for other reasons, at least that's (relatively) understandable, and I'll promise to seem more boring if you stop picturing me as an actual full-time fool. I mainly fix grammar here, and the diffs can prove it. Irrelevant to orbital space news, though, so maybe later, missy. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In this case, I agree with TRM. We have a discussion plus 2 separate proposals, each with only 1 other voter. This seems excessive, we could just stick to the point in hand (removal or not), with edits being discussed in the same thread. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I did not realize that a logical follow on discussion branching off from another was not permitted. In this case I offered my proposal to 1) explain my oppose and 2) help to perhaps seek a compromise. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Support total removal from ITN/R. This week I've been passionately avoiding comparing TRM to Miss Piggy. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I have eaten to excess a couple of times this week so the comparison and nomenclature would be perfectly apt. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you could post a calendar indicating suitable weeks. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Any week I'm "away on business". That's almost every week right now, so fire away. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Complete Removal The nature of space exploration makes it a poor fit for ITNR, which is supposed to suppress debate, not create more. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support complete removal – Each of the increasingly frequent space missions (not just ISS) should be judged on its merits, like most other occurrences are. We are effectively gatekeepers in the realm of events, which is what our readers expect of us. The SpaceX item is now the least interesting blurb in the box. –– Sca (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, no, that is 100% wrong. We are not gatekeepers of importance. That's not what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia (and those that edit it) do not decide for the world what is and is not important. Wikipedia reflects what other sources report. We don't do that here. Our main job is to improve and/or create Wikipedia articles based on what is out there. --Jayron32 13:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    Again, let's agree to disagree. We're not mindless automatons. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    No, we aren't. But we also should not think of ourselves as more important than the sources we are using. Being "gatekeepers" of anything is not what we should be thinking of ourselves as, except as gatekeepers of the quality of articles that are highlighted on the main page. --Jayron32 13:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems we are leaning toward the complete removal here. Any objections if I close this? --Tone 11:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    Seems appropriate. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    No objection. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:25, 15 November 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.
  • Some late opposes came in, was that considered? 331dot (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Parameter "nocurrenteventslink"[edit]

@Stephen: The most recent edit to Template:In the news/footer has deleted the test on the "nocurrenteventslink" parameter. When the page is transcluded at the top of Portal:Current events, this parameter ensures that the text doesn't try to link to itself. There's an ugly double-bolded Other recent events there currently. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Three years later! Since you made an edit to Template:In the news/footer today, perhaps you could have a look at this? -- John of Reading (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
No wonder it was missed on that obscure talk page! Suggested code now in Template:In the news/footer/sandbox and Template:In the news/sandbox. Would you like the "ongoing" link delinked as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@MSGJ: No, I think that one can stay linked. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)