Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 78

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80→Archive 85

Closing/re-opening noms

The White House has regained its orange tint, thus rendering this discussion topic moot.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 6 October 2020 (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.

@Jayron32: What needs to exist in order to merit the re-opening of a nom, or the re-closing of one for which further discussion is taking place? We all understand that significance is subjective, so what's the barometer here?--WaltCip-(talk) 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel that Jayron32 is acting improperly here and is strongarming the discussion. The fact that people are still trying to comment even after all of that is bona fide proof that the closure of the thread was premature, or at least that a discussion about a possible re-opening of the thread should be allowed to continue underneath it. Extending the archive box around more and more dissenting voices just looks like bullying. Nsk92 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
There was zero support for posting the item at issue and no one attempting to reopen the discussion expressed support for posting. The closure was proper and should be respected in this case. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Was putting a support in front of my comment really all it would have taken? That's rather persnickety. Not to mention it probably would have been interpreted as classless since the nom was already closed.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
There should be something to hang our hat on in order to reopen a discussion, not just the potential that people might come along and support it or add to the discussion. If you in good faith support it, fair enough. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
What was in my post should have been substantive enough. No other rationale presented within that thread had presented the plethora of international sources that I had brought to the table. We all know that there's an unspoken rule (as much as we try to deny it) that whenever U.S.-based stories are nominated and compared to stories on other countries, we examine international significance as well as national significance for the simple reason of addressing inherent systemic bias that comes with having lots of U.S. editors. As TRM has said many times: "This is not U.S.-pedia". The fact that other countries are breathlessly covering this event, even in spite of comparative events not being posted on ITN, should have been enough to merit something other than an immediate re-closure.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, an hour and a half of discussion time. Come on. Even I thought RBG was posted way too fast.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I've said this before but we have to be 100% aware of how much the US news unbalancingly dominated the news and have to take that into account into judging importance. Just because it caught that much international attention, it still, fundamentally, a non-story for all purposes similar to any other world leader getting - but not dying from getting COVID. We have to know that the next two months, all the world's eyes are on the US due to the election, and that they are going to be hypersensitive to any news stories, but we have to remain as selective as ever at ITN and take that bias into account. --Masem (t) 13:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
You say this as if posting a blurb that's not from the USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and NZ is easy. It's not. This is something I've learned here for pushing noms outside of those 4 countries. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I know we tend to have a problem of judging news out of non-G7 countries a priori as inconsequentially, which is an issue to. But there's also just a general factor of what is the news about. "The sitting leader of country X gets COVID", we have decided, is not ITN news, unless that person died from it and triggered the head of state transition per ITNR. Doesn't matter if every newspaper in the world spent the entire front section on that news. That's why, over and over, we state we are not a news ticker, and thus have to both ignore the importance that one could judge by the volume of news coverage, and the lack of importance by lack of coverage or the origin of the story, and instead judge by the type of story (and of course article quality) towards ITNs goals. --Masem (t) 13:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It's arguments like these that make me think that we should retire ITN as a section of the Main Page altogether, except possibly for the RD portion. We basically are saying to our readers that we know way way way better what's good for them and what's really important. That 8 editors who cast the 'oppose' votes in that discussion count more than all the news coverage in the world and the fact that tomorrow we'll probably discover that the DT Wikipedia article had been viewed by over 500K readers today (or at least I wouldn't be surprised if it were a number in that range). Those readers, they don't know anything about our ITN and ITNR rules, no do they care. But they most definitely know when a story is 'in the news'. Nsk92 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Not really. WP's not a newspaper, and ITNs not a news ticker, and people coming to WP's front page and ITN expecting to see a snapshot of world headlines are very much in the wrong place. Even considering that DT getting covid is a major story that goes beyond a newspaper (it is appropriate to be documenting in WP), its still a story that has gained undue coverage because it is 1) about the US and 2) right before the election. It could have serious world implications but those are not yet facts and ITN avoids posting stories that are simply based on implications. Those of us here at ITN long enough recognize how to weed out the media bias on these types of stories to focus on ones that actually have direct consequences that we can discuss and not hyperbole that is generated by the press. That's a major difference here. --Masem (t) 14:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The thread was open and closed when the North American editors were asleep and before they had a chance to react and to contribute. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, every single oppose there was based simply on a personal opinion. None of them cited any sources. At that time no substantive coverage was availale yet. Now there is a great deal of it, worldwide, addressing the significance and impact of the event. We are supposed to go here mainly based on what WP:RS say and not just based on our personal biases, the last time I checked. Under these circumstances, the issue deserves to be revisited and a discussion about whether to reopen the nomination should have been allowed to continue below it. Nsk92 (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the place to have such a discussion, really(perhaps with a link under the closed discussion). Usually people comment that people in North America decide something before everyone else(as recently happened with RBG). All opposes and supports are based on personal opinions; that's what we do here, create a consensus of personal opinions. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
"At that time no substantive coverage was availale yet." [citation needed] This isn't the 19th century where news has to spread via telegraphs, ships etc and then someone has to write the story, the type needs to be laid out for the press etc. I found this out while shopping, the store had some NZ talk radio station and they were talking about US presidential succession and temporary handing over power on some which I found weird but whatever. Then they mentioned a tweet from Melania and from that I gathered that Trump and Melania had tested positive for COVID-19. I quickly checked the BBC News app and confirmed I was right. If I wasn't shopping, I may have turned on Al Jazaaera English and I'm 99% sure they would have been talking about it unless it was too late and they'd given up for now and I had to rewind a bit or wait 5-10 minutes for them to mention it again. I'm fairly sure I could have checked virtually any major NZ news site, any major Malaysian news site, any major British news site, any major Australian news site, etc etc with the same result. I was talking about it with a friend, and realised that although this was recent, there had been fair warning because Hope Hicks had tested positive and the president had tweeted he was being tested meaning the media even had 2 hours or so to prepare their stories etc. I still opposed about 20 minutes later. I actually expect probably 90% of opposers heard about this from somewhere else probably their local news before reading it on ITN. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, please. I don't mean the breaking news news posts, but news stories where the impact of the event is analyzed in some detail. Now there are plenty of news articles now discussing the impact of Trump's diagnosis on the U.S. election and on the worldwide affairs, e.g. NYT [1], Deutche Welle, [2], France 24: [3], Barrons, [4], etc. Nsk92 (talk)
Except that pretty much everyting in those stores was already talked about within 1-2 hours of the announcement. Again, this isn't the 19th century or even the 20th, and media had about 2 hours to consider such stuff, which they did. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Case in point, 3 hours ago, BBC was already talking about how the world media responded [5]. If we look at the live BBC reports, times seem to be in BST (UTC+1) are probably in your local time depending on your browser [6], about 1 hour 15 minutes after the announcement they were already talking about a rally being cancelled, about 1 hour and 20 minutes they were already calling it an "Earth-shaking development" with mentions of it being 32 days before the election and stuff like "The president will have to stay in isolation for treatment. Campaign rallies are off. The next presidential debate, in two weeks, is in question.", about 21 hour and 15 minutes they mentioned how the China GT editor-in-chief saying he paid the price for his gamble and it would negatively affect his campaign, about 21 hour and 30 minutes they were already talked about the expected impact on the share market linking to this article [7], at about 23 hours and 10 minutes they were already talking about world leaders sending their well wishes, at about 32 hours and 15 minutes it was "Analysis: Astonishing but unsurprising news" with more talk of the election etc, about 43 hours after the annoucementannouncement they were walking about how the US media reported the news. And anyone familiar with BBC knows that a lot of that, especially the analysis stuff by their editors etc, almost definitely was appearing in some article as well. Given the way most modern media updates their stories continually sometimes without even properly noting they did so, and in nearly all cases without it being possible to retrieve the earlier version except via third party web archives (or maybe asking the media organisation), it's very difficult to actually see the earlier stories and I'm not going to try. But the idea that much of the above is new or unexpected is unsupported and not the way the modern media works. Obviously the stories get better written and more focused and more in depth etc over time, but the core stuff has been there since significantly before this talk page discussion was opened. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Apologies I confused myself with the BBC time stamps so my time frames above were off by an hour. I've correct them. It was a little longer than I expected, still the BBC and other European sources are likely to be a bit slow because it was early morning before hand and I stand by my main point, none of the stuff you posted is particularly unexpected or surprising and a lot of it had already been discussed in various ways, especially in TV and radio reports. (I mentioned the NZ radio before, what I didn't mention is one of the points they discussed is what would happen if both the president and VP were incapacitated and how the law was less clear unlike if they were both deceased, and it would likely be fairly chaotic or quoting someone I believe they said "a shitshow". And this was within about an hour of the announcement Trump had tested positive.) Also my time frame for Hope Hicks was off. Seems it was over 4 hours from when it was known Hope Hicks had tested positive [8] to when it was known Trump had tested positive. So the media had 4 hours not 2 hours to write up those stories etc which IMO further re-affirms my view. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @WaltCip: Develop consensus here to re-open the nomination. I did not close the initial discussion. It was closed by a different administrator. If you think that initial closure was in error, start a discussion here and see if there is consensus to re-open it. I'm officially neutral on the matter of reopening and also neutral on the original question. --Jayron32 14:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
DT is still pres., still in office, still tweeting, and still what he is politically. That he tested Covid-19-positive is momentarily the No. 1 story in RS-land, but unless it incapacitates him there's no immediate impact. Consequently, the attempt by some to force posting of this announcement due to the inevitable Schadenfreude was misguided and impermissible. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sca: I see the opposite. I see people rushing to oppose this nomination because it's "another Trump non-story". That to me speaks more to ITN's culture towards U.S. stories than to any sort of Schadenfreude.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
In this instance, I don't see the fact that he's American as a factor per se. Much more salient are his extreme populist political rhetoric and his policies that work against international cooperation. Also, of course, various contentious personal traits of his. – Sca (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty ambivalent about this since the consensus probably won't be changing, but if people want to keep discussing it, why not - what's the worst that can happen? A common complaint would be that it takes up the community's time, but in this case whoever participates is voluntarily investing their time, so it's not actually a bad thing. Banedon (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Unless a definite consensus can be marshaled here for reopening, there's no point in further discussion of the nom. at this time. (And FWIW, the only European Wiki listing DT in their ITNs today is the French one. German, Dutch, Czech and Swedish Wikis ignore it.) – Sca (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know why this is even being discussed. I don't think the matter was even nominated when Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsonaro or Jeanine Áñez tested positive - a PM and two Presidents. Johnson being UK PM, the most comparable figure to Trump in terms of power and global recognition, and Bolsonaro being the other president known for denying COVID-19 is a big deal. And when Johnson went into intensive care and the UK literally installed an interim government it was nominated but not posted as "another COVID story". Fundamentally, there is nothing different between Trump and any other world leader testing positive, and if we didn't post the second most globally-recognized world leader/government handing over then there is a precedent we should not post until, at least, Pence has to step up. And anyone calling for the discussion to be re-opened when the US is in daytime is asking for bias to help push it through, as well as not AGF that it was closed on merit (rather than to stop Americans !voting) - something we just dealt with re. RBG. In this case, it is so very clear the only reason to post would be US-centrism, and asking for the discussion to be reopened when it's an obvious SNOW close for that reason is pulling ITN apart more. Kingsif (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I like to consider myself detached from the usual U.S.-centrism, and people can look at my record of !voting on ITN to verify this, where I have explicitly opposed U.S.-centric stories that lack general newsworthiness. I'm looking at the totality of international news sources. Other countries have stopped and turned to the U.S. as a result of this story being published. Of course this is a U.S.-centric story in the sense that it concerns the government of the United States; but the government of the United States holds an outsized amount of influence on global affairs - militarily and economically - which is UNDENIABLE even given Trump's trend towards isolationism. Is it just a blip? Yes. But it is a very, very large blip. It is a newsworthy blip. That is why I asked for a second look.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump is undoubtedly the most controversial person in the world, but until something more notable than other world leaders getting it happens, or some controversy about the diagnosis itself, it can't outweigh them in equitable terms. Kingsif (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
In fact BoJo having COVID-19 was nominated, twice. [9] and [10]. I'm so exhausted with this knee-jerk "we'd only post/nominate if this were in America" reaction. From bus crashes to brush fires to Boris it's demonstrably false yet it gets bandied around like a fact. There is an "American bias" around here alright, a vicious, persistent automatic "anti-American bias" that makes it ok to "snow close" discussions in minutes without controversy no matter what the news coverage and erect a wall of text if it's posted before people from around the world get an opportunity to shit on America. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
If there are people saying we have a pro-American bias and other people saying we have an anti-American bias, we must actually be right in the middle, which is where we should be. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment lets just stop closing nominations. It serves no purpose. The bot will archive them after 7 days. If you do not wish to participate in the discussion, then scroll past it. There is not a compelling argument to close down a discussion (except maybe RDs who weren't really dead). Lets just stop it already. Stop. Stop doing it. Stop closing noms. Stop. Enough already just stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
There are nominations that are timesinks and that keeping open is unproductive, including successful nominations. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Then ignore them. Scroll past them. Ignore them. It's not like some component of Mediawiki is compelling anyone to read those sections. Scroll past and ignore it. If those who persist believe it needs attention they can flag it "needs attention". If you think participation in a discussion is unproductive, don't participate. Scroll past and ignore it. Easy. No more closing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
That might work for discussions on separate pages, but not here where all discussions are on the same page and lengthy unproductive discussions potentially would make it hard to read(and load for users with slow or costly internet). I don't understand the resistance to active management. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose re-opening the ITN item. It has already been re-opened twice. Chrisclear (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting of the proposed item, given the precedent established with the non-publication of the Boris Johnson diagnosis (who was not only diagnosed but also was in hospital and in intensive care) and Jair Bolsonaro. Chrisclear (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    Did you really need to do two separate opposes there? Obviously if you're opposed to it being posted you are also opposed to it being reopened. And we don't establish precedents at ITN, we consider (or are supposed to consider) each nomination on its own merits.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    Yes I did need to do two separate opposes, as they are two very separate issues. I disagree with your second sentence, especially with the intensifier of 'obviously'. There may be situations where I am in support/opposition to a previously-made decision and I would like the discussion to be reopened. Regarding your third sentence, I disagree and/or could rephrase my opposition to the item being posted - I think it should not be posted for all the reasons that were given for the non-posting of the Johnson nomination. Chrisclear (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting it, as it would be awkward. We'd be posting the fact that Trump has COVID in Wikipedia's voice, when the only source for that being the case is the White House, and we know what relationship they have with the truth. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support reopening the discussion. It was closed too quickly and the arguments against it are pretty weak. The criteria for inclusion are up-to-date article content, newsworthiness based on significant coverage, and article quality. As far as I can tell, nobody here nor in the original discussion for this item has made a good argument against the nomination using these guidelines. @WaltCip and Nsk92: made compelling arguments supporting the nomination based on these guidelines. Closures are supposed to be made based on the quality of the policy-informed arguments, not a simple vote count. Qono (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose re-opening at this time. If/when Trump is incapacitated to the point that the 25th Amendment comes into play and the Vice President has to take over, then it might be worth taking another look. But a mere announcement from the White House that Trump is quarantining is not going to get consensus even if we spend 24 hours talking about it. This was a legitimate use of the snowball clause.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support re-opening the thread. The 'It has already been reopened twice' is not a valid argument against re-opening. Neither is Black Kite's implication that we could be helping spread a hoax perpetrated by the Trump campaign itself. The Trump positive COVID-19 diagnosis has been widely reported by the media all over the world, and there are plenty of WP:RS to base the story on. As Oono points out, the opposes so far have been based, exclusively, as far as I can tell, on personal opinions. Nobody has cited any sources. So let me cite some again. NYT: The news of an American president contracting a potentially lethal virus carried global repercussions beyond that of any other world leader., CNN Trump's diagnosis throws election into chaos, threatens governing crisis, The Hill The impact of Trump's COVID-19 diagnosis on public health, Bloomberg Trump’s Covid-19 Diagnosis Reshapes Election a Month From Vote. The international impact has also been much greater than, say in Boris Johnson's case, as already evident, for example by the reaction in China. At a minimum, these factors justify re-opening the thread at INT/C page where fuller participation by other editors can occur. Nsk92 (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I also support re-opening the thread. The thread was closed rather quickly and more input to support a final decision is needed. As with many other topics, as time goes on, more sources become available to flesh out information. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Jurisdicta Note that most of the opposes in the discussion qualify the opposition by being open to additional information or changes in circumstances. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support re-opening the thread. Since there's clearly some disagreement here about whether the blurb should be posted or not, it's not WP:SNOW. If the thread does re-open, I'd still !vote oppose on the blurb, though :p -- Ununseti (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • WTF? This is not a vote. The nom has been closed by multiple admins, because it stands no chance of being posted. This is done routinely in situations like this, and it signifies that discussion is over and it's time to move on. There is zero chance of the Trump Covid story being posted on ITN and it remains closed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Two admins. One admin closed it and the other is neutral on whether to keep it open or closed, and is simply blanketing the first admin's decision.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Jayron did say above "If you think that initial closure was in error, start a discussion here and see if there is consensus to re-open it." Not surprising people started voting:)-- P-K3 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's the other thing as well. Jayron asked me to develop a consensus to re-open the nomination. I put forth my arguments. Votes of support to re-open began coming in. This is hardly a fait accompli.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, well with all due respect to Jayron, that's not what should be happening. If closing discussions is going to spawn side threads on this page, debating whether to reopen the closed discussion, then we might as well not close it in the first place. This is even worse than people piling on in the original discussion. Now debating the whole concept of closing is another matter, that's what this section started out as, and that's a legitimate question... but given the longstanding history of routine closures, it probably needs an RFC or similar if you want a change in convention. With respect to the Trump thread though, it's dead. Move on and WP:Drop the stick. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
President Trump has had a fever, receiving experimental polyclonal antibody treatment. Count Iblis (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump's condition has taken a turn for the worse, will be treated in Walter Reed Hospital. Count Iblis (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Unsee anything about 'worsening condition' in these initial reports: [11] [12] [13] Guardian quotes official W. Hse. statement saying DT has "mild symptoms" and is being hospitalized "out of an abundance of caution." Nothing has changed that I can discover. – Sca (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The official White House statement is what Trump wants you to know about his condition. The facts are that he had a fever all this day while that was not disclosed until after Wall Street closed. Also he was given the highest dose of an experimental drug that so far has only been given to 275 people, also disclosed after Wall Street closed. And now he is going to Walter Reed for several days, and Trump is saying to you now that this is out of an abundance of caution. Count Iblis (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump had shortness of breath. And the Trump team lied about Trump having tested negative before the presidential debate. He was not tested as the Trump team has now admitted. Having symptoms like fever and shortness of breath from COVID-19 now would be extremely a-typical when testing negative on Tuesday. Count Iblis (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
CNN reports that Trump received supplemental oxygen on Friday. Count Iblis (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment it's a good thing we closed this before he went to the hospital right? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's patently absurd and part of the ongoing pathetic US-centric Donald Trump ticker to argue over this non-nomination. He's walked himself to his helicopter to get a couple of weeks in hospital. IF he dies, I'm sure we'll have a smattering of coverage here. Otherwise, like Brazil, the UK, other nations whose leaders have had Covid and recovered, this is NOTHING SPECIAL. Move on, and more importantly, stop engaging in "opening-and-closing wars". Pathetic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I concur. WP:NOTNEWS also extends to us not being obliged to mirror Google News indexing, etc. I do think that Trump could deteriorate to the point of it becoming ITN-worthy (likewise, I thought Johnson's deterioration, but not infection, was ITN-worthy) — so, I don't think death should be a prerequisite. Regardless, as it stands, because he is not in a (significant) deteriorated state, and may well just recover, there's nothing for ITNC to do at this time. Hospitalization which is officially attributed to an abundance of caution is not at the stage where something major has happened (all political and electoral considerations —which are irrelevant to ITN— aside). Until that happens, please do not re-open. El_C 00:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem with that is that if we deviate from what the sources say is news, we end up doing WP:OR to determine what is news ourselves, different people will then have different opinions and that is then the fundamental reason why there are a lot of disputes about what should be covered here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
News sources have the luxury of writing about the likelihood of something major to happen, whereas we actually have to wait for it to happen. There could simply be weeks of Trump feeling moderately fine, then recovering. There is no OR-by-omission here. As an information provider whose core policies are often at odds with the news cycle, we ought to remain reserved. El_C 00:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Then stop closing them. If anyone can re-open a nom then either don't close them or don't complain when they get reopened. If closed means closed then fine, lets just be ok with anyone shutting down discussion on a topic when they believe it's hopeless. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I know we tend to agree on more things than not at ITN, but can you at least see where I'm coming from with my argument? I'm not interested in turning ITN into a Trump ticker, but I also can't ignore the fact that many international news sources see this as newsworthy enough to put at the top of their homepages. There is obviously a level of subjectivity and discretion in play here if we determine that these news sites are just blowing smoke instead of publishing actually significant content, but when you have something that is so widespread in coverage, I would rather make sure that a nom has a proper representation of arguments instead of opening it for an hour and then slamming it shut again. It's not RAH-RAH-USA. It's just, I feel, a matter of courtesy. WaltCip-(talk) 04:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support reopening the discussion - I looked at the main page just now and thought, "Why isn't this posted on ITN yet?" So I went to ITNC and saw the discussion closed. Then I came here to complain about that, and found this discussion. I don't participate much at ITNC, and this is a good example of why. I cannot wrap my mind around a process that thinks an ice hockey championship is worth posting on the main page of Wikipedia but Trump contracting coronavirus -- which is literally the biggest thing in the news in the entire world for the last 24 hours -- is not worth posting. How did we get here? Because the discussion was closed after one hour. Calls for "SNOW" start from the second !vote (even though the first !vote supported), and then a dozen editors participated over one hour, and then it's closed. At 06:30 UTC, when everyone in the Western Hemisphere is asleep. That's not a discussion that was open to participation, at any point. The first 12 editors who respond within the hour are not a representative sample of the thousands of editors who are going to have an opinion on this. Try posting it at CENT, leave it open for 24hrs at least, see what happens. My prediction: more and more editors will come banging on ITNC's doors until it's posted. It's a glaring omission, and that ITNC discussion just screams "walled garden". Really disappointed in ITNC today; we can do a lot better than "one hour and then everyone shut up!". Lev!vich 04:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support reopening the discussion - as has often been said, Wikipedia is a reflection of the world. We don't get to decide what's important or that something isn't newsworthy. This has been the top story in the English-speaking world (and much of the rest of the world besides) for 24 hours and it is clearly notable. It may not have been when initially closed, but that only goes to show that decision was hastily made. Reopen the discussion. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support re-opening the discussion, now that there is an article called "White House outbreak of COVID-19". Also, per above, this story is receiving lots of coverage in international RS as it develops (Trump was hospitalized today). There is enough support now to say that the original SNOW close is no longer justified. Davey2116 (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • What part of Wikipedia is not a newspaper is being misunderstood here? ITN is not a newsticker. We didn't post the other world leaders that go it, we're not making an exception for Trump. --Masem (t) 05:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    The part where the discussion was open for one hour. Lev!vich 05:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    That's exactly how SNOW closures - anywhere else on WP - are supposed to work. A lot of opposes early on gives an admin a reason a good reason to shut down quickly using their best judgement. Yes, they can be reopened, but now its clear on the discussion here that even with re-opening, there would not be consensus to post per past precedent. --Masem (t) 06:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think one hour is long enough to determine consensus, and I don't think that's how SNOW closures work at ITNC or anywhere else on WP. I also refuse on principle to address the merits of posting the item, other than in a re-opened discussion; ITNC is the place for that discussion, not WT:ITN. Lev!vich 06:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    The thread above #Introducing minimum time before posting from Sep. 19 begins ... sometimes decisions on posting blurbs are speedily made without taking into account the time differences, thus practically depriving many users of the right to actively participate in discussions and share their thoughts.. Prescient. Lev!vich 06:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose re-opening, oppose posting since this is apparently a vote now. There's not enough happening yet to post; the potential for something big to happen is why news sources are covering it. The "support re-opening" votes are a bit ridiculous. List it at WP:CENT - really? Nobody has cited any sources what the hell kind of sourcing could there possibly be for something that just happened not being news? The nose count is something like 20-5 against, and would be more lopsided if most of the people that oppose posting hadn't (rightfully) assumed the discussion was over. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose re-opening, oppose posting consensus was unlikely to develop. If it were re-opened, I would oppose posting unless there is a transfer of power due to death or incapacity for the reasons given here and in that discussion — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY Needing to vote first on whether we can then vote again on a blurb? Should have just left it reopened to begin with. Either a real snow becomes an even more obvious snow, or the other half of the world waking up provides a new perspective. All for the mere price of a few hours. We could have already been doing that productively at ITNC instead of wasting the same amount of effort here.—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – ITN blurbs aren't based on speculation. For all any of us knows personally, DT could be at death's door, but no RS reports support such a notion. We must craft blurbs on the basis of credible published information. So far, today's (much reduced) coverage shows little or no change in the situation. [14] [15] – Sca (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment it's a good thing the second Whitehouse COVID-19 nom wasn't "snow closed" in under an hour as a vigorous and healthy discussion is going on and while there may be no clear consensus to post there is no clear consensus not to post either. Another reason why this nom closing nonsense needs to stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Update – DT says he's getting better. [16] [17] Some reports indicate his condition earlier may have been more serious than was then acknowledged. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
That's debatable, as Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told reporters off the record(though it was recorded) a very different interpretation- and there is every reason to disbelieve official White House statements. They also faked a photo of Trump "working". 331dot (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Believe whatever you want, makes no diff. ITN is about what's reported/quoted/documented on the record. Natch, there's lotsa mere talk out there. It's cheap. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
You're keeping track of blow-by-blow accounts of the virus's impact on the President. That reinforces its newsworthiness.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Depending on the nature of the impacts. Man gets sick, man gets well wouldn't sound very significant. – Sca (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump's only chance to win the elections was to change the narrative away from COVID-19. That would have required a lot of campaigning in the swing states. His illness keeps the COVID-19 very relevant, including the worst part of the Biden narrative for him, i.e. that his incompetence led to most of the problems. So, the consequence of Trump's illness is that Biden is going to win. Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm biding my time on that one. – Sca (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't bet my six-pence on this race.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors arguing for and against the inclusion of the DT Covid story were coming from a good place, but there is no justification that a story that gets round the clock international coverage, and on almost all non English-language sources at that, should be disallowed on ITN while the Emir of Kuwait, Stanley Cup, etc, do in fact appear, which hardly appear on any global news site at all. This highlights one of the serious absurdities of ITN. And take it from someone who has been trying to expand global perspective and fight systemic bias on WP for a while - I think this is totally, utterly, absurd. Colipon+(Talk) 12:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The change in the Emir of Kuwait is the change of a head of government and head of state. The Trump Covid-19 story is just someone contracting a virus for which there is already an infobox. The Stanley Cup is a recurring item, so it trumps all non-recurring items. Pun intended. Chrisclear (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I love how the Emir of Kuwait is a "a head of government and head of state", while Trump is just a random "someone". Howard the Duck (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Someone make a Kamala Harris pun so we can complete the quadfecta.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like puerile linguistic trumpery to me. - Sca (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
That is a WP:BLP violation. The fat politician is persimmon, not orange.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
At the moment it's more of a ghostly white, do we have to add a footnote? Kingsif (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Right now ITN has two sporting event blurbs and one about the new Emir of Kuwait (last week's news). Meanwhile, Trump getting COVID is on the front page of cbc.ca, thetimes.co.uk, heraldsun.com.au, bild.de, lemonde.fr, etc. for the fourth straight day... but not Wikipedia. Lev!vich 15:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikinews sounds like the project for you guys. This is an encyclopedia about encyclopedic things that change the world. An obese bronze maniac who catches a disease (like other world leaders have done), spreads it around a load and then gets the best health care in the known universe is not encyclopdic in value. IF HE DIED, that would be another story. And as you well know, it's not Trump catches Covid that's being reported, it's Trump acts like an idiot which is being reported, and that is about as far from news as you can get. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
encyclopedic things that change the world like the 2020 London Marathon and the 2020 Stanley Cup, or Snooker, or Head of the Charles? That new Kuwaiti Emir is going to change the world? Come on. Trump catching COVID is more important than the Stanley Cup or the London marathon or a new Kuwaiti Emir. You know how I know that's true? Because one of these things has been on the front age of every world newspaper for four days straight, and none of the others have. We "follow the sources" at Wikipedia... except at ITN, where editors trump reliable sources based on their personal views about what's important and what's not. It's plainly ludicrous to say ITN is for encyclopedic things that change the world when two out of three ITN blurbs right now are about sports. Lev!vich 16:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No, it really isn't. If he dies of Covid, that's important. The other things you cite will all be recorded with encyclopedic value. Slobby disrespectful tangerine man gets sick and gives it to dozens of others through negligence is a footnote. You might not like sports but if you want to remove ITNR, try to do that. Meanwhile, as the community overwhelmingly agrees, incompetent world leader gets ill just like other world leaders have got ill is not encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The ITNC community agrees, and that's what's wrong with ITNC. The notion that announcing the winner of an annual sports tournament belongs on Wikipedia's front page, but the first time a POTUS is hospitalized in 40 years belongs at WikiNews, is entirely backwards. ITNC is the only place on enwiki where it's OK to place the opinions of editors above what's reported by RSes. Anyone want to make a bet that in one year's time, there will be more academic literature published about Trump getting COVID than there will be about the Stanley Cup or London Marathon or new Kuwaiti Emir? That's the real test of what belongs in the encyclopedia: what will the scholars write about? Lev!vich 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha! As if you think the first time a POTUS is hospitalized in 40 years is an actual thing! The UK PM and the Brazilian president both got ill. Boris ended up in hospital for a long time. Was that newsworthy? More so than this clown who is seemingly about to discharge. Complain all you like that we're not running a Trump ticker and moan all you want about ITNR, but it won't make any difference because you're arguing from a false position. There was strong consensus against this tabloid story, and rightly so, just as there was for the Boris lookalike story. If you want to change ITNC/ITNR, make a proposal. Just sitting here whinging about not getting Trump on the main page while naysaying all the other news items is hardly the right approach. And yes, I'm sure US universities are preparing to run their "Donald Trump studies" degree courses as we speak. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course it was newsworthy when Boris was in the ICU. That also made worldwide front page news for multiple news cycles. (Less coverage than Trump has received, but newsworthy nonetheless.) All the same arguments that apply to POTUS being hospitalized with COVID apply to the UK PM being hospitalized with COVID. And it was a huge mistake to not put that on the front page, for all the same reasons it's a huge mistake to not put this on the front page. And do you seriously think historians are not going to write about the Trump presidency? You don't think there's a "Donald Trump studies" already in academia? Are you kidding? [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. We're talking about POTUS here: every US president is the subject of scholarly study. (So is every UK PM.) (But not so much every Kuwaiti Emir, and definitely not ice hockey.) I pulled those nine journal articles out of Donald Trump references... how many scholarly articles are there about any of the other items at ITN right now?
And by the way, as to making a proposal, this is WT:ITN. This is the right page to discuss changes to ITN. Lev!vich 16:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Am I glad not to live in the US! What proposal are you making? It's got lost in all complaining about sports events being ITNR. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia (not just ITN), per WP:CRYSTAL we do not engage at all the mass wild speculation that the press applies to a news story to judge its importance. This is why WP:NEVENTS is written to look for enduring coverage of a topic, not just a burst of news. That the US President and a good chuck of close staff and those in his political circle certainly is an item to document, but the bulk of the coverage is all wild speculation on how this will impact the election and other ongoing processes that Trump is involved with (like the SCOTUS nominee). WP as a whole cares not for these elements and we do not document them in the first place until the effect actually occurs. (So like we have probably written that the SCOTUS nominee hearings have been put on hold due to the temporarily halt on Senate proceedings due to this but that's it). We can't go beyond this, period, even though the press want to take it there. We simply don't do this, and that's part of our purpose as not a newspaper. If you really want to document that in a Wiki way, that's what Wikinews is for, but no en.wiki. --Masem (t) 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikinews is ---> that way. In any case, this is a moot point, the bloated satsuma is going to be out and about as of later on today, distributing more infection and deceit, so the story is concluded, with literally nothing of encyclopedic value to report other than his own bioterrorism. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
You mean this one? – Sca (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: CRYSTAL is irrelevant here. Nobody is talking about posting predictions at ITN, or posting at ITN about an event that is expected to happen in the future. Trump being hospitalized happened in the past, just like the Stanley Cup.
@TRM: The Stanley Cup concluded 9 days ago and it's still on our main page. When you say "nothing of encyclopedic value to report", surely you're not suggesting that POTUS being hospitalized is not something of encyclopedic value. It's already reported in our encyclopedia. Also can you skip the Trump insults at ITN pages? Makes us looked biased in a place where we should be neutral. Thanks. Lev!vich 06:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
We don't lower standards just because (a) things have been on the main page a while and (b) because people want Trump all over the main page. As to your concerns, they're not insults, they're all true. He's bloviated. He's orange. And he's a bioterrorist. All factually correct and unbiased. And yes, I'm sure we have a similarly bloated over-the-top coverage of his mini-break in hospital in his article or perhaps Donald Trump's hospitalization should be a thing if you believe it's notable, but it's all over now, and he's back to his best, relentlessly putting lives at danger. Nothing more to see here, your normal program has been resumed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Insults don't have to be false to be insults.
What lowering of standards? I look at what it says at WP:ITN and Trump beats Stanley Cup on significance (length and depth of coverage, number of unique articles about the topic, frequency of updates about the topic, types of news sources reporting the story) and the two articles both meet the quality standards (referenced, untagged, long enough, updated).
It's still on the front page of Bild.de and LeMonde.fr, so regular program has not yet been resumed. Lev!vich 07:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, of course it's still "in the news" because people can't quite get their heads around the fact the obese carrot-coloured bioterrorist is continuing to attempt to infect all those around him and making absurd statements to further endanger his own citizens. It's incredulity at the stupidity. This is a common theme when Trump opens his mouth, people report on its typical absurdity. Just because items are old, we don't just lower our bar to become a tabloid Trump ticker. He's back and everything has returned to the status quo. Nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The gratuitous insults make us all look like a bunch of assholes. Just so you know. You bring down the reputation of the entire website when you act like this in public. Anyway, there is no "anti-Trump" clause in the ITN criteria. You keep saying "lower the bar" but the bar is met by the topic according to ITN's own criteria. Instead of anything objective based on ITN criteria, what I'm getting from this conversation with you is that the reason this wasn't posted is because the regulars at ITNC hate Trump. That can't be right. I don't think that's the reason, I think it's just you who is so focused on the guy. Lev!vich 07:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Not at all. I couldn't care less about Trump, and I'm very very pleased he lives so far away and isn't causing so much damage. I think it's the people who are trying to insist this is some kind of encyclopedic event are the assholes around here. But YMMV. At least we didn't post it, it was a damp squib, a storm in a teacup, a waste of thousands of column inches. Utter tripe. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That's 8,800 words. Enough. DT is back. It's over. Suggest close this confabulation.
– Sca (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2020 (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.

Radical idea

(non-admin closure) WP:GOODFAITH suggestion. Closing since no consensus for the motion.

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.

Here's an idea. Rather than dozens of editors discussing the merits of each nomination, we could elect 3-4 people for a period of a month to select which nominations meet the criteria. These "ITN editors" should be intimately familiar with the ITN rules, and would have discretion to interpret the guidelines as they think appropriate. If they are not admins they can use {{@ITNA}} to get items posted. They could be re-elected, but should serve no more than two successive months. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Wow. That's not just radical, that's extremely offensive and contrary to the basic principles of how Wikipedia operates. We work here in the open, by consensus, where all editors are allowed to participate in editing decisions. ITN has lots of problems but they are not going to be solved by making it less open and turning it over to some sort of elite assembly of divine experts. One ArbCom is enough, we don't need more. I'd rather see ITN retired from the main page altogether, except for the RD section, than turn it into an official old boy's club, with cigars and horderves. Nsk92 (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. We might consider a population weighted number of representatives per United Nations geoscheme so that if Asia outnumbers Europe 3:1 by population they get 3x more representatives on the editorial board than Europe does. It might be impossible to implement though and if that's the case I'm fine dropping it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I understand why certain main page sections have small committees of clerks that manage them, but ITN is far too fluid and nebulous to nail down to just a few people. Even the TFA process still depends on having consensus discussions ahead of time, even though the technical aspects of posting are left to a small cadre of admin clerks. This seems like a fantastically bad idea for ITN.--Jayron32 11:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Does the "humor section" header from above apply here? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with thanks to the nom for the good faith suggestion. IMHO the current ITN isn't perfect, but the majority of the time it gets of right, and it also gets it right in the cases where consensus changes as a discussion progresses. The fact that even seasoned regulars at the page often disagree on an item's suitability suggests this is an area where our standard WP:Consensus building processes work best.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Although the process might need some thought. Elections are cumbersome, so you want fewer, but the work is intense, so even a month would be exhausting. I suggest the possibility electing a slate of a dozen and then rostering them. I think LaserLegs has a good idea too, and balancing the roster by time zone would be helpful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose both the merits of the proposal and its specifics. This area functions best with broad participation, and we usually get it right. If we don't trust the community to get it right, why would a select group do better? This idea goes against how Wikipedia is run, by consensus. With the specifics, a month is too short a term, and the group is too small, and without a guarantee of differing regional viewpoints. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose this proposition. A smaller group of individuals will not necessarily have better input. As been stated before, broad participation helps keep the needle centered. ITN is a very fluid and in my view, more input is better. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:CREEP. This will also serve to increase systemic bias. Those voted in will have more backers from larger contributing demographics (e.g. English speakers, the United States etc) which will lead to more of those articles being "selected" for publication, which is exactly what we don't need. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose No cabals please. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure if this proposal aims to replace admins with "ITN admins" who would judge consensus or limit participation at ITNC to just a handful of editors. In general, I think the admins who frequent ITN do a good job of determining when consensus has been reached to post an item and a bigger issue is the behavior of some editors at ITNC as well as on this talk page. It would be better if admins were more willing to "police" (for lack of a better word) the discussions like they would at XFD or on noticeboard pages like ANI. This would foster greater participation and, IMO, result in more content being posted. -- Calidum 19:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thread has not seen an update for some time. If there are no objections, I will close this thread (non-admin closure) since there is no consensus for the motion. Ktin (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2020 (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.
(non-admin closure) No appetite for consideration. Closing thread.Ktin (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2020 (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.

Hi All,

Recently, a point by MSGJ got me thinking. Currently, the WP:ITNRD guidelines say 5-6 RDs can be mentioned in the box. Guidelines can be accessed here Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recent_deaths. Is there an issue in updating this to 6-7 as long as it does not spill over beyond two lines? The reason I ask this is because the carousel moves pretty fast at times, and it seems like there is merit to increasing the time some of these articles spend on the carousel, particularly given some of the time investment folks are making to improve the articles. Also, almost always, there is whitespace on the second row with six RDs. Cheers! Ktin (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think 6 should be sufficient, but I think they should be ordered by date of posting not by date of death. That would give them all a fair amount of exposure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I think a few of us already aim to keep RDs up at least 24h before rotating them off.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
6 is fine. On phones, it takes up 3 full lines.—Bagumba (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, Thanks. Quick qn -- where are you seeing this on the phone? Browser? or iOS / Android app? The iOS app does not even carry ITNRD. It only has the news headlines. I have been trying to talk to anyone who knows more about the iOS app. Ktin (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
For me, browsing both the mobile view and desktop view on a mobile device (iPhone/Chrome) has RDs over 3 lines, with the six current items. Stephen 05:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Stephen, Thanks. My question was browser vs iOS / Android app. It seems like the answer is browser, because at least the iOS app does not carry ITNRD. Ktin (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Ktin: Browser.—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba Got it. Thanks. Not a CSS / html stylesheet expert, but, seems like mobile web is going to continue to be a problem. Anyways, it is what it is. Ktin (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently 3 lines portrait (2 landscape) on my Samsung Galaxy S10 running Firefox. On mobile it actually doesn't matter though because of the stacked view there is no "balance" to worry about. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
LaserLegs, Agree with you. Hence, my thinking is that increasing the count to 7 is fairly innocuous, since there seems to be whitespace on the second row (at least on the desktop view) almost always. Ktin (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just curious, is there not anyone who thinks increasing to 7 (because we have white space in the second row on desktops) is an innocuous idea worth trying? Am I that alone in holding that view? :) Ktin (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Remember that we also have mobile users too. Clicking "Mobile view" at the bottom shows me that the 6 names span two lines with no extra white space. --Masem (t) 22:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      Masem, Agree. You are right (as also are folks above) re: mobile views. But, as LaserLegs pointed out -- on mobile the rows can vary (e.g. right now on the S10 portrait mode, it is three rows already). Also, there is the element of stacking. Ktin (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Attempting this once more, since it looks like John Reid will fall off the carousel in less than 48 hours since the article went up. Shall we attempt an innocuous increase to 7 and check for feedback? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    No, six is enough. Stephen 22:13, 17 October 2020 (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.

(Closed) 2020 Bolivian general election - Big delay in posting

Pointless --LaserLegs (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2020 (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.

We really need to do better than what happened with the posting of the 2020 Bolivian general election. There was a time gap of 22 hours between it being marked ready and it being posted. No objections were raised during that period. Also, during that period three other items were posted. Given the short time frame in which items appear on the Main page, that really seems odd. Is Bolivia unimportant to those with the authority to post? Will this happen in two weeks time with the US election? HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out if you are making a WP:POINT with this comment or not because the usual complaint(in general) is that we are too quick with postings. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's inconceivable that the same thing will happen with the US election in two weeks time, isn't it? Yes, almost all US related items are posted far more quickly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
You are free to go out and recruit Bolivians or people interested in Bolivia to edit the English Wikipedia and contribute with the speed you feel there should be. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't speak for others but I don't consider the nationality of a nomination when reviewing one. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This was sad. The same people who'll trip each other to post a vacancy in the SCOTUS couldn't be bothered to post this in a speedy fashion as that. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that this is a WP:PEREN entry. There needs to be a de-coupling of adminship from main page editing. Most admins are content incompetent, so in actuality, finding some people who are trusted and able to maintain the main page would be a win-win: less hassle for the tiny cadre of admins and more competence applied to the main page by able volunteers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
PS, by far the most important point noted in HiLo48's opening post is Also, during that period three other items were posted. which really, perhaps inadvertently, gives an insight into how some people are working ITN. It doesn't look clever. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(And no, I don't need the "we're volunteers" spiel, I get that. I suggesting a practical solution to a real problem. Of course, if I proposed it formally, it'd sink and die (because it's TRM). But if a playa in good standing said so, who knows? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the most important thing. Yes, Admins ARE volunteers, but right now, as a group, are looking incapable of satisfying the time related needs of this process. Sensible suggestions for a solution are needed, not excuses. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
If you don't trust admins to participate here, why are we admins? Why not nominate yourself? 331dot (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Would love to be an Admin, but I wouldn't waste my time nominating. I would be too honest in my nomination, and say I would be just as tough if not tougher on policing bad behaviour by other Admins as I would be with other editors. And too many Admins already hate me. No way I would be accepted. But seriously, the issue here is the simple fact that Admins as a group are doing an appalling job of managing the posting of ITN nominations in a seemingly balanced, timely manner. No individual Admin is being blamed for this. But as a group, they're not coping. That's giving all Admins a poor image. A new approach is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how creating a super-group of a small number of ITN contributors who apparently somehow would be on duty more hours of the day than administrators, to be available for postings would solve what you perceive as a problem. That problem seems to be that US related stories are posted too fast and non-US stories are too slow. The way to deal with that is not an affirmative action program to suppress or slow down US related stories. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a frustrating conversation. I haven't suggested "a super-group of a small number of ITN contributors who apparently somehow would be on duty more hours of the day than administrators", so I have no idea why you are arguing against it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(A PS to that is that I have already pointed out that this took 22 hours(!!) to post, a period during which three other items were posted. Admins being "on duty" isn't the issue here. It's the process.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
TRM suggested that above, or at least that's how I interpret it. You said in response "Yes, Admins ARE volunteers, but right now, as a group, are looking incapable of satisfying the time related needs of this process" and also said "the issue here is the simple fact that Admins as a group are doing an appalling job of managing the posting of ITN nominations" both of which suggest that some group other than admins should be doing it. So what you want is an affirmative action program requiring the posting of something after a certain time interval(but not before another certain time interval, especially if the US is involved). As I've said, you are free to go out and recruit editors of your preferred nationalities to pariticipate here and balance out everyone else, in order to develop a consensus faster and in the manner you feel needed. I mean that sincerely. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop telling me what I want!!! Read my words. I try to choose them carefully. Don't tell me I have suggested something I haven't. You cannot possibly mean your comment sincerely. If so, your logic and comprehension really are very poor. I'm sorry I don't yet have a perfect solution to recommend. I was trying to initiate a sensible discussion. I didn't come here to be attacked by Admins. But I have certainly been told by plenty of them over the years that they know better than me, so how about YOU come up with some sensible ideas, rather than arguing against suggestions I haven't made! My impressions of the capabilities of Admins is not being improved by this conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why in recent months there has been a propensity to see bad faith and incompetence around every corner here when some don't get their way. It's very sad. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is the simple fact that Admins as a group are doing an appalling job of managing the posting of ITN nominations in a seemingly balanced, timely manner. No individual Admin is being blamed for this. But as a group, they're not coping. That's giving all Admins a poor image. A new approach is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
How do you propose to force administrators to post the nominations that you want with the speed that you want? 331dot (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
A start would be for Admins to admit there is a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I object to being accused of bickering. I was defending myself against personal attacks and misrepresentation. Are we simply silencing the conversation? HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Below are a few options. Important: Please note that I am not recommending one over the other at this stage. I have no preference on this matter.
1. Some folks have been doing this on the RDs recently, a) one of the editors marks a thread / topic as ready by adding "(Ready)" on the subject line b) if the post has not been picked up for posting by an Admin in 3/6 hours a ping is made to the last 5 Admins who have posted to the ITN box. E.g. ping Admin A | Admin B | Admin C - Please do you mind considering posting this one c) At that point, the one of the 5 Admins will usually come in and either post or say why the topic is not ready for posting, if the latter, will remove the "Ready tag" if egregious. I understand that step 1.a, is easier for an RD as opposed to a news item. But, if some seasoned editors can make that call this might work.
2. Agree on a 6 hour check-in interval. An Admin (obviously different ones in order to reasonable on time zones at that hour) checks in at 0000hours, 0600hours, 1200 hours, 1800 hours UTC. All articles that are in a ready state top to bottom in the listing is either acted or a note added with why the item is not ready. We can also consider this step in addition to #1 from above.
3. Some folks above are considering / suggesting a sub-class of ITN editors who might have posting privileges. Not sure how feasible that is technically, but, in the spirit of being MECE in the options, I am listing it here.
Cheers and Good luck! Ktin (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ktin. It's good to see constructive suggestions from someone close to the coalface. I did the (sub-)step of labelling the item in question as "(Ready)" on the subject line for the item in question, but didn't follow it up with any pings to Admins. I'll try to do that in future, but it does seem a bit clumsy, and unlikely to be followed by less experienced editors. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I admit to bickering, and I apologize to all. It frustrates me to see general complaints that boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT without solutions to what is claimed to be the problem offered. It offends me personally because I try to do my best to be fair to all and all nominations. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

From earlier posts of mine above - "No individual Admin is being blamed for this" and " I'm sorry I don't yet have a perfect solution to recommend. I was trying to initiate a sensible discussion. I didn't come here to be attacked by Admins." HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
With comments like "Is Bolivia unimportant to those with the authority to post?" I don't know how I'm supposed to feel any differently. I do not consider the nationality of a nomination when reviewing ITNC and you are suggesting to me that I do. I don't expect the perfect solution to be offered immediately but just saying "X issue is a problem" is not very helpful without even an imperfect solution. I would be more than willing to receive messages from you pointing out a nomination you feel is ready. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that you didn't like my question (which obviously wasn't addressed specifically at you), do you have any suggestions as to why the Bolivia nomination did have to wait so long? HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I could only speculate but I don't see any evidence of anything untoward like anti-Bolivia bias. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2020 (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.

Why is Sean Connery still on the front page?

Sean Connery's death should be removed as it's no longer newsworthy- no major news corporations have his death on their front page anymore- so why should it still be on Wikipedia's? Also hijacking this thread (no pun intended) to oppose terrorist related incidents on the main page, the reason of a terrorist attack is to cause terror and posting it on the main page would be giving in to their threats- so I propose a ban on nominating terror attacks, let me know what you think. ExcutientTalk 05:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

ITN is not a news ticket, it only features topics that have been in the news that have encyclopedic relevance that also represent some of the best work on WP. As such, we don't add blurbs as frequently as newspapers generate headlines. Connery's death will scroll off when we add another blurb (likely the US election , but that depends) but we never rush to push blurbs off. --Masem (t) 06:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Alright, but isn't my 2nd point valid? Also, why is the Kabul University attack on the front page, yet the Vienna attacks were removed in a matter of hours. ExcutientTalk 06:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Closed)_2020_Vienna_attacks, there was no consensus. All news items are discussed at that Nominations page before being posted. Brandmeistertalk 10:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have looked into the matter, and I can confirm with absolute certainty that Sean Connery is still dead. BD2412 T 06:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ITN was established long ago to report on a terrorist attack. I can't see a blanket rationale for banning the posting of such. I'll also add that "deplatforming" is nonsense and I'll be glad when it's finally discarded. There are two ITN items newer than Connery's death. If you'd like to find and upload a suitable image for either, do so and inform WP:ERRORS with a suggestion to change the picture.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you please provide a source for that claim? "De-platforming" is completely rational in the context of a terrorist attack, you're not refuting the central point either and your tone suggests you've been attacked on a personal level, could you please clarify? Finally, I don't understand what you're even on about in the last sentence as I've not said anything about images. A WHOIS of your IP shows you're using a university network so I'd strongly advise against performing edits without logging in first. ExcutientTalk 07:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Excutient: It's their prerogative if they choose to have their address exposed (WP:IP).—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba It's stated in (WP:IP): "Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits." You likely misunderstood it as an attack, however it was simply advice. ExcutientTalk 08:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Excutient: I didn't consider it an "attack" but "strongly" seemed a bit too alarming. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems clear that you don't understand how the ITN nomination process works. I invite you to participate in the process of adding items to the main page at WP:ITN/C. Everybody's input is valued.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

How are we going to deal with the US presidential election?

To get straight to the point of this, it's pretty clear to me that this is going to be one of the most widely covered elections in American history so we're really going to want to have an item up. The problem is that the existing WP:ITN/C process of "create blurb for winner and add" probably isn't going to work here for a couple of reasons. One is that there's going to be a large amount of mail-in ballots that won't be counted on election night. That means there's a good chance that we won't know the winner of the US election until a while after voting day, yet we'll still need to post something considering the importance of the US presidential election. The second problem is that there's possibility the results of this election will be disputed and both sides will claim victory. I don't need to explain why this would be a problem for the traditional WP:ITNC. I believe that due to the unprecedented nature of the election and reasons above, we should have a discussion now on what possible blurbs will look like in different situations and what we're likely going to update ITN with because waiting until election night expecting to be able to post "John Doe has been declared the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election!" is a recipe for disaster. Specifically, for the "after-election blurb" we should figure out:

  • What should the blurb be if the election results are uncontested and the winner is called on election night?
  • What should the blurb be if the winner isn't known by election night and nobody claims victory?
  • What should the blurb be if one side claims victory on election night and the other side refuses to acknowledge that?
    • Specifically, what should the phrasing be if reliable sources either a) agree that one side has won, b) don't have a consensus on which side has won, or c) agree that the winner isn't known yet?
      • What if Wikipedia editors can't come to a consensus on what the reliable sources state?
  • What should the blurb be if both sides claim victory on election night?
    • Specifically, what should the phrasing be if reliable sources either a) agree that one side has won or b) don't have a consensus on which side has won?
      • What if Wikipedia editors can't come to a consensus on if reliable sources agree?

This doesn't address everything but I'd like to get us set up for the election-night instead of scrambling to find consensus on the wording in what is likely to be an incredibly contentious matter. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment These issues aren't really new for elections. Like all elections, they can be dealt with on the day of they occur. Chrisclear (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
We'll use our standard blurb wording when the winner is confirmed. Just like the elections of every other country. Stephen 04:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Key is confirmed; if we have another Gore v. Bush situation, we likely will not report anythin Nov 3/4, and wait until an official count is in (There was a similar national election that we waited for on that news but I forget which that was.) --Masem (t) 04:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
There is actually a reasonable possibility that we will know the outcome by November 4, if one candidate is clearly sweeping those states that do require all ballots to be received by election day. However, we should be very careful not to get ahead of the real news, and strenuously avoid any pressure to appear to take a side or propel the narrative of either party. I suspect there will be tremendous pressures for this in either direction. BD2412 T 05:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Same as what Stephen said. Standard blurb when the winner is declared, I am not sure how this is a problem or who will put pressure on ITN/C people to post report that's not confirmed by the relevant authorities and reputable mainstream media houses. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I expect that there will be pressure to report one candidate or the other as leading, or as having won a key state, or alternately that there will be pressure to report assertions by one campaign or the other of irregularities or alleged voter fraud or voter intimidation. BD2412 T 14:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
As always, post based on consensus on what reliable sources say. It would even be more straigtforward if one party happens to concede.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, this isn't that complicated, we go with what reliable sources say. I assume the blurb will eventually be something like "(Donald Trump/Joe Biden) is (re-)elected President of the United States, while the (Democratic Party wins/Republican Party retains) control of the United States Senate, and the Democratic Party increases its majority in the House of Representatives." (almost no one thinks the House will flip and if anything the Ds will add seats) If there is a dispute of some kind and the winner is not clear, a blurb could just note the occurrence of the election and any dispute. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This feels like a solution in search of a problem. 331dot nails it. Nothing more to add. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • So if reliable sources are saying that one candidate has won, but the other candidate is refusing to concede, we will post? That could be controversial.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
There is no legal requirement in the US of a formal concession by the loser. If the legal process is carried out and one side wins, it doesn't matter what the loser does. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but legal challenges could still continue until each state's electoral college voters meet, which isn't until December.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Legal challenges reversing the apparent result would be blurb worthy by itself. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Refusing to concede =/= did not win the election. It's not picking sides, it's just the result of the election. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
This hypothetical is dependent on 1) what the reliable sources will say and 2) what will be the consensus here. Too many variables to prepare for, so just wait for it to play out.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
If the Democrats win, we might consider the first black, woman or black woman veep to be the bigger story. Racism and sexism have been hot topics this year (as well as for centuries), in and out of US news, and the VP is higher up the totem pole than the president in various important aspects of governance. If the Republicans win, Pence carrying on in relative obscurity is only perhaps eighth in line, impactwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
If there's a clear winner by 4AM EST, we'll post it then. If it's not, we'll have several hours to discuss after most of the polls close whether to post a "results are not yet determined" headline (unlikely) or to wait longer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There's a second issue which is that this election will very likely set a new record for highest voter turnout in terms of numbers and percentage of the population. Media outlets are already reporting that this is a once in a century election. This fact is newsworthy and should be reported before the results are available. Something like, "Voters turn out in record numbers for the 2020 United States elections" The blurb can then be edited when results are confirmed. Many readers will be coming looking for information. We should have a link that directs them to the relevant article(s). Jehochman Talk 16:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
    • We rarely report superlatives (outside of sporting world records) at ITN, especially as a placeholder if we don't have hard results that we can present. (Not doubting that turning is recording breaking, just that we don't usually treat those as news items, as that sets a poor precedence). --Masem (t) 16:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Also, I don't think we should be acting as if readers cannot find their way to our election pages without any help. (COVID was a bit different given how many pages we had and the global scale of it). If I go "US election" as the search term it right now takes me immediately to the 2020 election results page (smart redirect, whoever set that up) so I think we have "readers looking for information" covered without having to make an ITN placeholder issue here. --Masem (t) 16:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree with Masem: "record turnout" is all very interesting, but so what? We'll need to do that for every single election subsequently, and really, what does it add? Nothing. Do we need to then start adding "record low turnout" to poorly attended elections? We've already discussed ad infinitum about "rigged" elections (e.g. those which some here consider to be unfairly judged, such as Russia and North Korea). Let the facts be the facts, don't embellish with trivia which has literally no impact. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Trump is planning to claim victory no matter what. We can post the house/senate and wait for SCOTUS to hand the presidency to Trump later. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment We should just have a generic "Americans go to the polls in the presidential, Senate, and House elections". This article will be the most viewed one this week, and we should definitely have something on the front page, even if its not a result (and if we won't have one for a while due to mailins or shenanigans).  Nixinova   T   C   06:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Nomination: You are invited to contribute thoughts at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#2020 United States elections. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Close Nomination Until at least one RS reports some sort of result. The past practice is to post only election results. Posting the election alone would be a major break. I humbly suggest that we wait until at least something is announced as a result before considering a blurb.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has just been nominated for ITN, wait until after president is announced. SoloGaming (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Last election this was posted by a trigger happy admin before the article was updated. Can we please make sure the article has a decent update before we post it to the front page. AIRcorn (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Potential visual: If we decide to put something on the front page before there's an official result (as I hope we will), we may need a visual other than the candidate portraits. commons:Category:Voting in the United States presidential election, 2020 is surprisingly empty, but there is File:Poll worker sanitizes election booth.jpg, which is decent enough as a photo of voting. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The generic one is fine, its factual, and can't be incorrect. Can always do another ITN if a winner is determined through the courts a few weeks later. Albertaont (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I have placed images of Trump and Biden into the image protection queue , as the article is pretty much ready to go barring the update to the announced winner and a blurb once reports are confirmed. (this is ignoring the likely legal challenges that will follow). --Masem (t) 16:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This election will likely be non-standard. The blurb should be neutral, such as “In the United States presidential election Jospeh Biden / Donald Trump wins a majority of electors in the Electoral College.” US presidential elections are functionally different. Because this one might be disputed we should use precise language. I recommend posting this as soon as two or more major news outlets call the election. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's a bit different that these lawsuits are going to hold up the final numbers, rather than change final numbers. I would agree that even now with the Michigan vote being contested, if we have multiple RSes (among them being NYTimes) making strong judgement calls that one or the other has won, we can make a blurb that stays neutral but indicates that the results are still contested. (From the non-WPian hat, its doubtful these suits will have merit, but...) Maybe "... projected as the winner of the 2020 Presidential election amid ongoing litigation over vote counting." as the blurb part. --Masem (t) 19:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment should put this in ongoing while the count is going on, given the breadth & depth of coverage, and the fact we got news articles like this one that explicitly say the rest of the world is watching. [27] Banedon (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd support ongoing at this point. --Tone 20:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Only if its clear that we're not going to have some type of definitive result before the end of Thursday. (including the allowance for legal challenges). There's plenty of hours left for counting today in the contests states that could give a winner that we can still post soon. No rush yet. --Masem (t) 20:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    • At this point I'd support ongoing. There's highly unusual stuff going on: this IMO is no longer just an election. —valereee (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Harris

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris (collage)
Joe Biden, Kamala Harris (collage)


FYI & FWIW, this is the image used in German Wiki's version of ITN. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

From the Women in Red perspective, it would be preferable to include Harris. And while the news is obviously the election being won, there's the other story about her string of historic firsts for the US that make Harris perhaps more notable than Biden in the whole affair. It would be nice to have her image up on the main page to reflect that. Kingsif (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
No need for adjusting the blurb but certainly seems appropriate to use the collage Sca has identified. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I've decided to add it. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. (Luckily, that Bear Flag behind her is barely discernible.) – Sca (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Excellent compromise, thanks all. Looks good. Espresso Addict (remote) (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Standard blurb wording and formatting

The nomination Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Chase_Elliott reminds me of a todo that I never get around to of making a nice-to-have list of standard wording and formating for blurbs, esp. WP:ITN/R items. Seems inefficient to re-invent the wheel each time. It's just a handy reference; IAR would allow tweaking a given nomination as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Heads of government

As has been discussed at great length at ITN, we currently say changes of head of state are ITN/R but not head of government despite the fact that in many, many countries the latter holds all the actual power while the former is of very little relevance. Thus, I think that we should consider changing the rules to be "heads of state *or* of government" This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I would suggest that you review prior discussions on this topic, as it has been considered before. Most changes in head of government are posted as part of posting general election results. It's the few that aren't that get judged on their own merits, which I think is a good thing. Short of a sudden event like death, or a scandal/criminal charges, a party uncontroversially changing its leader does not usually result in new policies or a change in direction for the country. It's also good for all heads of state to get a shot a posting, as every country has a head of state that is its representative to the world(even if "powerless") so doing so allows for regional variety. 331dot (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggested a change to heads of state OR government - i.e. both would be ITNR. Besides, "a party uncontroversially changing its leader" is something we do in fact post at ITN (Japan last week for example). So I'm not really suggesting a change, just officializing the de facto situation This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You are suggesting a change since you adding "or", suggesting only one or the other could be ITNR- which would lead to many discussions about which ones from each category should be included. Better to leave things as they are, with posting heads of state and most changes in head of government as part of an election. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It also cuts both ways; there are countries with powerless PMs, where the PM is appointed by/beholden to the head of state. In Russia it depends on which office Putin decides to hold(though it looks like he will stick with president for now). 331dot (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Your point is? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment we should just key it off the green cells in List of current heads of state and government and post changes in those positions either as part of an election or as a one-off if it happens outside an election. I do not understand the ongoing reluctance to do so. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 1. Effectively, the status quo is that we post both for the big countries (G-7 etc.) but head of state only for lesser countries. For example, we posted non-ITNR successions in Japan this month and in the UK last year. So this discussion really only matters for lesser countries. 2. The notion that general election results covers changes to heads of government is invalid as it may take months for a government to form. We rejected the new Taoiseach[28] on this basis. 3. I agree with Laserlegs that we should only post the more substantial of the roles. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what is meant by "lesser countries" but we can't post what isn't nominated, and things don't get nominated if they are not extensively in the news. "Lesser countries" are not always in the news. That's not our fault. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see what the time for a government has to form has to do with this. IIRC the results of the election are ITNR regardless of if a government is formed or not. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You know exactly what I mean by lesser countries. So say there is a general election in the UK and Labour wins a plurality: we post as ITNR. After a month or so, Sir Keir forms a government and becomes Prime Minister. Do we post it? No; we post succession of heads of state, not government. And besides, we just posted Labour winning the election - it was assumed their guy would be PM. OKAY, JOKE OVER of course we post the new PM for UK. But for any other country, that's the argument you will see, and we have seen again and again. My point is that common sense dictates that we post succession of a new head of government, and we always do for the big countries even if we just posted their general election a few months prior. It is only countries of lesser regard that we stick to the ITNR script. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't know what you mean by "lesser countries". I work to try to treat all nominations in the same manner regardless of the country involved. Most likely I don't always succeed, but I try. As I said, it is not our fault that the news covers some countries more than others. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
"Lesser countries"!! Does the humor tag apply to this?? ROFLMAO. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!)
Who are you two trying to fool? Anyone who thinks we treat events in G-7 countries the same as equivalent events in others is deluded. Don't act like I'm being biased when I'm actively working against it. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Masem, Spencer, and Stephen: I think we've allowed enough time and have sufficient support to implement this. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

President-elect

It's not official that Biden wins the election. He is only projected to win by the mainstream media. 2604:3D08:4E7F:F7E0:3519:78F6:8BB0:2F68 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal, sorry. Further comment about ITN posting should be made at WP:ITNC or WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The current wording is correct. It represents the clear consensus of all reliable sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the front page does not reflect the wording of the Wikipedia article:

The front page states: "Joe Biden (pictured) wins the United States presidential election."

The wikipedia article states: "All major news outlets projecting the race have projected that Biden has won the election, including ABC News, the Associated Press, Business Insider, CNN, Decision Desk HQ, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, Reuters, and Vox.[5] Counting continues to determine the final results. "

and

"Joe Biden, the presumptive winner of the 2020 presidential election, pending the formal voting by the Electoral College in mid-December, is scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2021"

@Onceinawhile: @331dot: If you really believe that's what the sources say, edit the appropriate article and use that wording. The text in the front page should accurately reflect what was redacted in the article. The front page should be subject to MORE stringent requirements than the article not less.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TZubiri (talk • contribs) --TZubiri (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

TZubiri I stand by and reiterate my statement above. The quotes you provide only support the statement. If you disagree with what the reliable sources are saying, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
331dot I highlighted the caveats used in the article by bolding them in the quotes above. The front page does not use any such qualifiers. The ITN committee should respect this purposeful, contended, and deliberated wording by the article's editors.--TZubiri (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
331dot. The sources does not state that "Biden wins". In the news is misleading to insist that "Biden wins the election". 2604:3D08:4E7F:F7E0:3519:78F6:8BB0:2F68 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, this page is for discussing the operation of ITN, not discussions like this. Please use the pages I suggest above to pursue your viewpoint on this. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
TZubiriThere is no "ITN committee". Just editors helping out. Please feel free to offer your views on this at WP:ITNC. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the link you provided, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#November_7 . The proposed and voted blurb reads:

"Joe Biden is projected as President-elect of the United States amid ongoing legal challenges." All of the alternative blurbs have a caveat. --TZubiri (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't vote on a particular blurb, or vote at all for that matter. It is a discussion with additional ideas and proposals given. I will have no further comment on this page. Please go to WP:ITNC or WP:ERRORS to give your views. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Can I just say that I appreciate using the image of Harris. Kudos to the admin(s) that chose that. Kingsif (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Pedantic as it may be, it is accurate to say that Biden won the presidential election, because a presidential election was held, and Biden won it. It would technically not be accurate to say that he was "elected president", but the blurb has it right. Teemu08 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Teemu08: Actually one is elected president by the electoral college not the general election, so he would be president-elect not president. The previously mentioned disctinction can be seen in reliable sources such as the Washington Post and USA today. As for those people saying the election isn't concluded until legal issues and recounts are settled, Wikipedia is not based on 'facts' but on what reliable sources claim; ergo, regardless of whatever may be true Wiki-guidelines constrain us to reflect what can be cited. Bgrus22 (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Alert from WikiProject Current Events (Sister Project)

Hello. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events format is currently being updated. However, one new change is a section for "Current discussions". The Portal:Current events has debates all the time to determine if things are notable for the portal (international news) or if they are better suited for a place like 2020 in the United States. In the past, small 'edit wars' have taken place between editors over topics. This new section on the WikiProject is a new place where editors can discuss between each other and have an easy access to 'outside opinion' from other participates. Members in the Current Event WikiProject are welcome to invite other editors that have disagreements to start the discussion on the WikiProject. (Unlike RFC's, discussions about topics would be about 1 week or whenever the topic is no longer relevant from the WikiProject).

Thank you for reading. This is a sister project, so I wanted to include this message here. (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

November 3 and 4 missing from archives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2020

I'm past caring at this point, but FYI if anyone does care --LaserLegs (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: minor revision to crewed space exploration ITNR

Now that SpaceX Crew-1 have sucessfully launched, per NASA and SpaceX's own publicity, we are now entering a new era of routine astronaut journeys to low Earth orbit being conducted by commercial providers. I would like to suggest that something's described even by its own operators as routine should no longer qualify for ITNR. While something being ITNR doesn't mean we necessarily post it since it still requires to meet quality standards and someone to actually nominate it, I would suggest that the fact we don't post routine Soyuz launches reflects the routineness of crewed launches these days. As such, I would like to propose changing from the current wordings of "the launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" to

  • 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 first re-launch of an existing type of spacecraft in crewed orbital spaceflights after an extended hiatus (i.e. 5 years).

The other space exploration criteria to remain unchanged:

  • The first and last launches of any type of rocket
  • Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article
  • A country conducting its first successful indigenous orbital launch
  • The launch of space stations or major components thereof
  • Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations

The above proposal will in effect remove as ITNR future Crewed Dragon & Soyuz MS flights from ITNR (until the last one), but keep as ITNR the first crewed Starliner (and SpaceShipTwo etc.) orbital spaceflight and/or docking with the ISS. -- KTC (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Support the above modifications. We've already not been paying any attention to the routine Soyuz launches for years; I honestly can't remember the last time we posted a Soyuz launch, they happen several times a year. This would reflect existing practice and not make any real changes to what we have been doing. I would like to see language put in there to the effect of "other launches may be posted to ITN so long as there is consensus they are newsworthy enough on their own", since people look at being missing from ITNR as some kind of evidence that an event may never be posted, and we should not do that. But that's a more general problem with ITNR (that somehow being missing from ITNR means it can never be posted) and really, the proposed changes are solid and reflect existing practice. --Jayron32 19:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    Support with additional modification to post a re-launch of an existing spacecraft if its been a long pause. This gives notability to something like a shuttle or soyuz if they suffer an accident, and they are later returned to service. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the reason why Soyuz don't get posted is because nobody bothers to update those articles. There was a time when all Soyuz were posted, but then people started getting booted off this site so nobody was left to update them. Currently the rate of SpaceX crewed launches is expected to be JUST 2-3 per year. For an entire flashy subject like manned spaceflight it gets plenty fo news coverage. If this becomes truly mundane, people will stop updating these articles so they will be rejected like Soyuz ones currently are. For the next few years, there won't be more than 4 non-Soyuz space launches every year, and there are 4 ITNRs for horseracing and that gets far fewer news coverage. 2601:602:9200:1310:E8C8:76F2:1FA3:A77C (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The above comment has it right re: Soyuz. It's not the it has become routine; it's because the articles haven't been up to Main Page quality. I would be willing to change ITNR criteria for subjects that get TOO MUCH coverage at ITN. Spaceflight is not one of those.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As noted, some space launches are not posted because no one updates the article, not because they are too routine. ITNR is simply a guide as to what topics are presumed notable, people still have to do the work to make updates to articles, and if they don't, they don't get posted. That's all that's happening here. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Amazon Pharmacy

I've never nominated anything for ITN previously, but took note of today's launch of Amazon Pharmacy, which, for better or worse, is likely to result a major disruption of the retail pharmacy sector. It's already in the top five trending Google searches today (ranked No. 3, here). I leave it to ITN veterans to determine whether or not this would be appropriate for inclusion on ITN. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, you have to nominate it at WP:ITN/C, not here. It could gain consensus for posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Muboshgu. As this was announced only today, I was planning to monitor the news coverage over the next couple days and decide whether it would be suitable for either ITN or DYK. If someone else wants to jump in sooner and nominate it, feel free to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_78&oldid=1137416531"