Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox

Should we change the pictures daily?

[edit]

I think so. The other main page sections do. This might include Photo RDs. If not, it may require reposting the same picture after a few days, or a different picture from the same article. It may even give us an incentive to post more articles in a timely fashion. However it happens, we seem to keep getting stuck on the last posted ones for rather long times lately. Is that what we want? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the image daily sounds like a great idea to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still trying to evaluate if there is a template/bot supporting option to establish a type of image carousel for this type of thing to make thing mostly automatic.
Changing the image is very admin heavy (verify image protection, make sure image is appropriate, change the "pictured" part of the blurb, etc) that we should try to avoid this too much. But I agree when an image is up for at least 48hr whether dye to lack of new blurbs, or blurbs without images, then exploring a new replacement image is reasonable as long as we aren't fighting for what image gets it. Masem (t) 22:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the last three hours or so, I've been trying to get the big red one from Xander Schauffele through to ERRORs. If it's OK with you, we could start working together on moving that forward. If not, totally understandable, no worries! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at that one, and put it in the queue a couple of days ago, but it's very poor quality and has visible artefacts in the thumbnail. Stephen 23:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed This file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. So OK, forget it, it sounds like there is a queue. Go with another? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Go with another?" What one exactly? Stephen 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any queue. I thought you could. Maybe even one where buddy doesn't look happy with the bad news? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "in the queue", I believe Stephen meant this edit to WP:CMP. —Cryptic 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I was clumsily pointing out that I'd already considered that picture, but ruled it out on quality grounds. Stephen 23:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nguyễn Phú Trọng's was up for a while, but it's now been a while ago, so there's that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images are for the topmost item if an image is available for that item. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You no-sold my vote at the April Cantelo nom, but yeah, April Cantelo. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's an RD and there's no consensus to have pictures for RDs, however many times you suggest it. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a me thing anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I am serious. There's just a bug going around that makes links like these look small (to me, at least). That's not urgent, but later, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toumani Diabaté's is pretty cool, too. Could remind more people that koras exist. We all already know there's a chorus. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get that discussion above properly closed with consensus in your favour and we can start picturing RDs. Then all the hand wringers can be pointed at this new consensus. Stephen 00:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it my best and my best is sometimes just enough; however it goes, it was good working with you again! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other queue is the commons' category related to checking the licenses of such files. that queue appears to be at least x0,000-some deep. I don't know what they are doing over there for that purpose, but that's not an en.wiki aspect. Masem (t) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good idea to ensure / showcase the freshness of the homepage. Would also support cycling through the blurb AND RDs for images. No need for any change in ITNC processes. Re: the implementation, would be good to have a protected queue of images and hopefully a bot comes by and rotates the images. Ktin (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the purpose of image changing on the main page is meant to correlate with changes in the section. If we want ITN to be more fresh, than we should focus on getting more stories on the front page. — Knightoftheswords 14:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the closing ceremonies of the Olympics from INTR

[edit]

Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Multi-sport events proclaims:

Opening and closing ceremonies of the:

Summer Olympic Games

Winter Olympic Games

In spite of this, the recent nomination for the closing ceremony of the 2024 Parisian Olympics was shut down, with people saying that it would make more sense to just rm the Olympics from ongoing. From this, the closing ceremonies have seemingly lost their mandate and so their status of ITNR needs reviewing. — Knightoftheswords 13:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those involved in the discussion: @Sandstein, MtPenguinMonster, Andrew Davidson, DecafPotato, Zzyzx11, Sportsnut24, Gödel2200, Joseph2302, Aydoh8, TheCorriynial, PrecariousWorlds, and Masem: — Knightoftheswords 13:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if the opening ceremony is fair game, so should the closing ceremony. I understand not posting for quality reasons, but the fact that this was closed in a few days due people stating that we shouldn't even be posting this, especially considering that (unlike what Sandstein stated), this story is still younger than the top blurb, is mind-boggling to me. I see this as an attempt to somewhat lazily circumnavigate actually improving the article via just defeatedly throwing your hands in the air and stating that we should just not post an ITNR item. — Knightoftheswords 13:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be kept, both Ceremonies The Olympics are major events every four years. We've just had an off year where we've not been able to post it. Thats all this is. They are always covered by many sources over many countries with IOC's, and even those that don't. TheCorriynial (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Closing Ceremony is very much as notable for ITN as the opening ceremony and signifies the games are over PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soon, as one bad year doesn't mean all subsequent years are going to be bad. If this us a longer trend that no one bothers to try to improve either article in time (that will include the winter Olympics), multiple times in a row, then we can talk removal. This was how, iurc, the one tennis US open or similar entry was removed, no one bother to update the results year after year. — Masem (t) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of individuals who are the main subject of an article

[edit]

Recently, the death of Jack Karlson was proposed at ITN, and the nomination was a mix of support/opposes based on criteria that seems to not take into account the notability of this individual and the spirit of the policy of WP:ITNRD. Internet memes are a relatively new cultural phenomena with the subjects in such memes becoming notable enough to be well-documented in such articles. Andras Arato, Zoë Roth, etc. should all be notable enough to mention in the event the subject of these memes were to pass.

I'm proposing that we update WP:ITNRD to recognize that individuals who are the primary subject of an article, regardless of it being a BLP, are notable enough for a mention in RD. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose flat out allowance, but also not against inclusion in such cases. The problem I saw with the Karlsson article was there was literally only a paragraph about him from a biographical standpoint. If that was longer, around 3 or so paragraphs that gave a fuller picture of his life outside that video (to a point a standalone could be justified but made more sense to keep in the video article), it likely would have been fine. To use the examples, Arato's got enough of a section to be reasonable, while there is zero on Roth's for this. Another example that I would consider for such posting like the Arato case is Star Wars Kid. Masem (t) 16:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe a compromise here makes sense. Karlson did expand into multiple paragraphs, fwiw. Reflecting upon Roth, her article amounts to little more than a stub and was probably a bad example, however, I would presume upon her death details about her life would be covered by reliable sources (similar to Roth). Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Karlsons still at a state that there is only one paragraph truly about him outside of the video. We would never split that off to a separate article in that state. I think more could have been written from the o it's but no one supporting the RD made action to do that. It is really going to depend on how that person was known before or after from the meme. I know Arato has accepted him place as a meme image (going to cons and such) so that's why he's fair game, but we have zero about Roth in this sense. Masem (t) 16:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary. Long standing precedent is that we generally expect a dedicated article for subjects to be posted at ITN. Some commonsense exceptions have been recognized and posted in the past. However, I don't think we should be lowering the bar here. Proposed exceptions to our normal practice can be handled on a case-by-case basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this becomes our stance, we should add a bullet in the ITNRD notes section to state that these will be considered only on an exceptional basis. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think we need a legalistic approach to most things. The way ITN works and our expectations are largely based on precedent and sometimes have evolved organically over time. People should feel free to invoke WP:COMMONSENSE or IAR whenever they think a nomination justifies an exception to our customary practice and make their case. Then we can discuss it and go from there. Not a big fan of rules creep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some change, but oppose as proposed. It shouldn't be a blanket allowance, but it should also not be a blanket ban as the rules are currently worded. They should be allowed to be assessed on a case by case basis. I don't really see a principled reason why an organism that does not have their own page, but is part of a group that does is technically eligible even if there is not a lot of coverage on that page, while an organism that does not have their own page but is the primary subject of a non-biographical, non-group page is never eligible no matter how in-depth the biographical information may be on that page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problem here would be identifying what "primary subject of an article" means. Ultimately, this is determined on a case by case basis. What I would support, however, would be changing: "Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis." to "Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on another article are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis," so that we make it clear that subjects having biographical coverage on another article could be posted, dependent upon a case-by-case assessment. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose automatic allowance. per Gödel2200. There isn't really currently a blanket ban, as the second bullet of the notes section allows for consideration on a case-by-case basis (which is exactly what should happen). If there is a desire to make this clearer then I'd change an article about a group to a broader article. As someone whose coverage is only small mentions on a narrow article about someone/something else shouldn't be posted. There needs to be some actual biographical content about them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a need for change. There's always IAR, and automatic allowance, as mentioned above, would be problematic. For example, Arató is has a decent case because most of the article is about him anyway. But with Roth, that article does not really read as close to biographic (and honestly seems very disjointed in general). DarkSide830 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Tour de France Femmes to ITNR

[edit]

As noted at ITN/C, every edition of the Tour de France Femmes has appeared at ITN since the race began in 2022, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be an entry at WP:ITNR.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=1242261386"