Wikipedia talk:In the news

Archive of ITN postings (redux)

Is there any update to the discussion last year? Someone started writing a program to generate the archive, and it was pretty far along in development, but I don't know whether the project was silently completed or just forgotten/abandoned. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Masem who was the someone in question. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You'd probably need to ask @Usernamekiran: who was the one programming a bot for this, I can't remember where we left off. — Masem (t) 14:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

the program was very good, but it was also including vandalism, which consisted of GIF images of human penis getting erect. I almost perfected the code, but then I got very busy with some other stuff. I will get working on it around 20th June. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've started the bot. But to go easy on server resources, I have set the edit rate to 70 seconds per edit. This would take around 25 to 30 days to get everything archived. Also, the archives of first few months/couple of years would needed to be checked, and edited manually for vandalism, alignment, and linter issues. I will do most of that myself, but for some things that I can't do myself, I will post either here or linter related venue. Around July 3, I will repair these pages, and then we can place the archive links wherever we want. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb?

• The recent RD posting for William Anders, who took the Earthrise photograph is a good example of option 3 as a good compromise. Why? The photograph (Earthrise) is more famous than the photographer. And because no consensus was reached to blurb the RD for Anders then the photograph of Earthrise could’ve been posted under ITN. Then for the RD posting : William Anders (Earthrise photographer). This is not a blurb. It’s a compromise: halfway between an RD and a RD/blurb. Another example of this 3rd option when opinion is evenly split: post the RD photo at the top of the ITN section, but no blurb. This is already done on the German and French Wikipedia sites. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm leaning oppose because it would be counterintuitive to direct the viewer's attention from a prominent photo in the top left to a far less prominent name slot in the lines below. If someone is important enough for an image associated with them to appear in ITN, they should get a blurb. Otherwise, RD. Bremps... 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Support, the first one could be Donald Sutherland. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  If he wasn't rolling off this Carousel of Souls in a few hours, yeah, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Superb InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• This is actually a good proposal. I remember proposing it a few years ago. Unfortunately, it did not find too many takers. Ideally I would want to see the admins having a liberty to pick and choose images from blurb articles (which they already do) and the RD carousel. Ktin (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the previous times it has been rejected. The photo illustrates the most recent blurb that we can illustrate, directing attention to it - RD is a supplement that is less important than a blurb (by definition and design), also RD vs blurb is contentious enough as it is without adding a third option to argue over. Finally, if photos of anything other than the deceased person were permitted, this would make visual artists a super-class of people who are more notable than others contrary to NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support, though it didn't go well when I actually tried to do it once (the overwrought reaction near the bottom was splendid, you'd think I'd replaced the Main Page with porn images). Here is what happened at ERRORS, and here is the discussion at this venue, which ended up around 50% Support/Oppose. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you read the reaction from readers at errors you will note widespread confusion and objection. Saying that someone whose isn't important enough to blurb is more important than any of the news stories that did get a blurb just doesn't make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I read the link Black Kite provides to the error page. These issues will not be resolved. The problem is that Recent Deaths falls under the In The News section. So usually consensus will not be reached on RD/blurb or RD/photo without creating a logjam. The only way to avoid this logjam is that Recent Deaths should have its own section on the Main Page separate from the In The News section. Just like the German Wikipedia does on their main page (eg. Kürzlich Verstorbene). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The photo slot is for actual in the news items, not old people who've sadly died. If there were a proposal to start having "sticky" RDs that stay for longer than the usual time slot, and/or. "necrology" section with an optional photo that's separate from the main ITN photo, as fr-wiki has, then I might be on board. But photo RDs in the current setup are a nonstarter.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• IAR I see no harm in having a photo of an RD whom is reasonably significant (not blurb-level but still more than most run-of-the-mill BLPs featured), but only if the main photo hasn't been rotated in a while (like, 48 hrs) and there's no good photo for the other blurbs that are present or haven't already had a photo. but this is with the expectation that this type of photo would be changed out in a short period of time (24 hr) by other possible photos. --Masem (t) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support An excellent idea. Note that in addition to Black Kite's precedent mentioned above, this also occurred in February 2020. Davey2116 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Aha! Thank you for that. I didn’t know about the Kirk Douglas photo on ITN. Setting precedent again. I think if we had the option RD/photo, this maybe would quell the excessive rancor amongst us ITN editors/voters. And find a better solution to this process. -Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support because why not try it out. Levivich (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Should RD’s have their own section separate from the In the News section?

• Why do RD’s continue to be listed under the In the News (ITN) section? Shouldn’t RD’s be given their own section? Currently all ITN items on the Main Page have a blurb. But most RD’s do not have a blurb. Why? Because RD nominations seldom rise to the level of a current In the News item. And consensus is seldom reached on RD/blurb nominations without creating a logjam (eg., a situation that seems irresolvable). The easiest and best way to avoid this logjam (and often contentious debates) is that Recent Deaths should have its own section on the Main Page separate from the In The News section. Just like the German Wikipedia does on their main page (eg. Kürzlich Verstorbene). Here are 4 items to consider as part of any guideline to creating and administering a new separate Recent Deaths section on Wikipedia’s Main Page:

1. If an RD should have a blurb, that is only because it meets the current criteria for an In the News item, and that’s the section where it will appear. (However, an RD photo can appear in the new RD section on the Main Page only at the administrator’s discretion).
2. If RD’s have their own section, there will never be an RD/blurb posted in the RD section of the main page: that would be redundant, and create a whole new administrative logjam. Again, RD/blurb is only an In the News item. Blurbs will never appear in the new Recent Deaths section on the Main Page.
3. RD/blurb will continue to be an In the News item. So for example, if a head of state dies (eg., Joe Biden), then the RD with a blurb will appear in the In the News section as an RD/blurb, but (just to clarify) no blurb will be shown in the separate RD section on the Main Page, just the RD itself. (IMO if opinion is evenly divided between support/oppose for an RD/blurb, an administrator can post a photo of the RD in the new Recent Deaths section as a compromise, but that just my opinion).
4. The voting for all this (support or oppose) will remain as it now is (eg. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates page, perhaps renamed as Wikipedia:In the news/RD/Candidates). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

   This has been proposed before and has failed, in part this requires a main page redesign to start. It seems like goal here us to allow photos for RDs but these move so fast that keeping up what the most current image would be for this section. Also spliting RDs from blurbs would be confusing since we often post RD while a blurb discussion is ongoing — Masem (t) 13:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

   Then it needs to be redesigned. It will make the English Wikipedia a better place for our readers. IMO, a Recent Deaths section could remain the same size as it is on the Main Page. I think we can find general agreement that an RD blurb is only an ongoing discussion about whether an RD meets the current criteria of an In the News item. This ongoing discussion is very divisive. Your input is held in high regard around here Masem. I’m afraid that without your support, this proposal will fail. But I had to take a shot at it. Oh well… - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

   I think you might have him confused with Muboshgu. I used to, anyway. Without Masem's support, anything is theoretically passable. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I think this is better than other proposed fixes, but I also think it won't stop occasional discussions about putting death blurbs into ITN (nor do I want it to). GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  No it won’t stop the RD/blurb discussions and whether they meet the In the News criteria. I agree. Aren’t all ITN items blurbed? But not all RD’s are blurbed. If Recent Deaths are given their own section, that is usually all the highlight they need (and a photo in the new Recent Deaths section) can soften the blow to those who wanted an RD/blurb that was opposed. This will soften the blow over contentious RD/blurb discussions and will increase editor participation. For example, I am still disappointed that Paul Auster was not given a blurb. He is an American writer who has rock star status (or here and here and here) in Europe but is generally unread and unknown in America. Also, the RD was not posted! And that’s because the blurb discussion was a distraction and btw, the Paul Auster RD was Ready to go but only on the last day that approval for posting could have happened but the discussion grew stale and the RD was overlooked. That wouldn’t have happened if my proposal for a new Recent Deaths section was in place. Trauma Novitiate (talk)| Trauma Novitiate (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how this would change a Paul Auster situation, if the !voting remains the same way that it is now. The discussion for blurbing would probably still dominate, and RDs could still go overlooked. Natg 19 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps. It’s true that the RD for Paul Auster was not posted because its numerous {cn} tags were not cleared up until about 4 hours before the RD posting period was closed. It’s my contention that the blurb discussion for Auster distracted us from simply getting it posted as an RD. Perhaps RD’s could be posted in a more timely manner if Recent Deaths had its own section. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  RD noms (not blurbs) tend to fall into three categories for nominations. O E, the article is ready to post at nomination time, the article has quality gaps but which are usually filled within a day or so, or the nomination fails to be posted due to little work to improve needed referencing. Those nominations in the first two categories tend to be posted quickly and rarely linger. It's when an article is miles away that we need to wait until it is improved, which in most cases, it doesn't. Auster's case was an exception. — Masem (t) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support Here are the top 10 reasons why this is a good idea
  1. RD nominations predominate at ITN, crowding out the news items
  2. But all these nominations don't usually attract much comment as they are typically run-of-the-mill
  3. And those routine RDs are not actually "in the news" in a significant way – they are mostly just people who died of illness and old age
  4. Respectable journals of record usually put such obituaries in a separate section from current affairs, sport and other general news
  5. And other language Wikipedias do this too, showing that it is both feasible and sensible
  6. Having a separate section will give the deaths more space, allowing for a short description for everyone
  7. A separate section will have its own picture which will provide more context and cues for the readership and a showcase for famous faces
  8. There's a natural synergy with the Deaths in 2024 page, which is usually one of Wikipedia's most read, and so their processes can be coordinated and combined efficiently.
  9. WikiProject Death and related activities will provide an experienced staff of gnomes, clerks and admins
  10. The current approach of a list of bare names is not working well and so it's time for a change.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Superb! Your reasoning skills are solid: Thank you! Trauma Novitiate (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the 10 points above. Most of these are in small obituries or the comments sections of newspapers so not "In the news" really — Iadmc♫^talk  12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  You do realise that this has no chance of happening? Redesigning the Main Page is a perennial proposal that has gone nowhere since 2006. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Even if we get plenty support? Are you sure about that? Stranger things have happened... — Iadmc♫^talk  14:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's obviously incorrect. That page says plainly that "TFL was added in 2011" and other changes have been made since such as the removal of portals, the trial of TAFI, the expansion of DYK, &c. And bear in mind that the majority of our readers use the mobile view. Major changes have been made to the sections shown in that; most recently in 2020, Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issue is the death blurbs themselves. The only way to truely solve this problem would be to discontinue them or find a hard-and-fast rule for them. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• I guess it's fine if you want to separate the section like they do on the German Wikipedia, but I don't see how that stops debates over blurbs from occurring. Unless you're suggesting no one gets a blurb, which I don't think anyone is, and which I would oppose. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we simply separated out RDs as a block separate from ITN, it might require either a reduction in the number of items on the right, or an increase in the space allowed for the TFA blurb. The Germans do this by exchanging Did you know ... (Schon gewusst?) with On this day (Was geschah am 22. Juni?), and having only four DYK hooks (we have eight). This creates more room on the right-hand side, so that they can separate recent deaths (Kürzlich Verstorbene) off from ITN (In den Nachrichten) as a fifth block. It doesn't look too bad. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good points. That makes a lot of sense to me. I hope we can make it happen someday! - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Does nothing to solve the problem that we have. Furthermore, there is no data to say that Blurb participation is impacted because of the presence of RD nominations. Ktin (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - In my view the answer is to get rid of the RD section. I remember the arguments for it before it existed. They were weak, and centered on eliminating the need for long discussion about whose death deserved a blurb. Years later, we can see it didn’t work. Just dump it altogether. Jusdafax (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstand the purpose of what RD is now. I've no doubt that that was the logic when it was established way back then, but now it is a process to showcase quality (DYK-level) articles of recently deceased organisms. Curbon7 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, RD doesn't serve any real purpose. To put it bluntly, 99.999% of readers do not care about RD 99.999% of the time. (This is an approximation, the exact numbers are not the point.) If something is worth posting on the main page, then surely we can come up with a better rationale than "the subject died". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Or, conversely, we can just keep RD and not do blurbs. Isn't this an easier solution? DarkSide830 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think I agree with you, but only if RD’s have their own section separate from the ITN section. A separate Recent Deaths section should never do a blurb (maybe a photo sometimes). Now if ITN wants to blurb an RD, then that’s a separate issue for ITN editors and contributors to decide. No blurbs in a Recent Deaths section that is separate from In the News. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  The RD part of ITN is working just fine. It removes the question of any significance that plagued it before the given RFC leaving only the issue of article quality. The problem is that we are still going to likely blurb people, obviously for unusual deaths, but there is always the line of the death of a major figure. The problem is that editors are using lowest common demoninator r ead ING to suggest blurbs without having the backing of solid reliable sourcing showing why the figure is great, and instead want to handwave the reasons to blurb. I'm willing to see more RD blurbs as long as if the article is near GA or FA quality in sourcing, and there is a clear obvious and reasonable amount of sourced content to describe them as being great in their field ( Donald Sutherland's article didn't have this at start but got it over the few days). But the bulk of the time a blurb is thrown out there, the article is miles away from quality, there is little to no sourcing to support the great figure language, and editors are grasping to their own OR or SYNTH claims of greatness. If we had more clear expectations on evaluating a great figure with clearcut quality ND evidence, we'd be better off. Masem (t) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I still don't get why we use the "significant in their field" evaluation at all. Very few deaths are notable in and of themselves. It's really just globally known heads of state (British monarch, US president, Russian president, etc) or high-profile assassinations, and maybe sudden deaths of other people known worldwide. Alternatively, we could loosen our standards of what gets posted on ITN to include any article that gets a significant update due to prominent recent events, which is much more in line with the purpose of an encyclopedia (and would mean more than three or four posts per week). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  We simply cannot include every article that happens to get a reasonable update due to being covered in the news, as that can lead to dozens of nominations per day. Further that is another way that we let systematic bias creep in, since news from western countries dominate news cycles. Eg this suggestion would lead to US election news be the primary thing we post from here to next January. Masem (t) 06:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say "every article that happens to get a reasonable update". I also think it's silly to restrict ourselves so severely into a path of election, disaster, murder, sporting event, repeat because we're afraid of having too many Anglosphere events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  At least we got a cat now! Seriously, we should really have more science stuff on ITN, or even more varied blurbs in general. This could probably also help with systemic bias, honestly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I proposed for blurb Gaia theory creator last year, but it had many opposes. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  We absolutely should be worried about giving the Anglosphere too much coverage via ITN, it already leans that way in so much that the bulk of reliable news sources have that lean that we can't avoid but can minimize. It would be great if news gave more coverage to things like science and medicine and other areas to broad our topics typically covered, but that's a limitation that we can't force to happen. — Masem (t) 15:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair there are a lot of elections this year. Maybe that's a thing to include? And then there's the Euros... — Iadmc♫^talk  06:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Having only "notable" deaths as you describe them be blurbed would honestly be a much better rule than the (mostly inconsistent) criteria we are using now. If the death doesn't deserve a standalone article, it very likely shouldn't deserve a blurb on the main page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Masem mentioned Donald Sutherland. He is presently listed in RDs, and I'm interested in him as I have seen several of his films. But looking in the ITN section just above the RDs I see that Willie Mays gets a blurb, whereas Donald Sutherland doesn't. I care about Willie Mays about as much as I care about any other baseball player (i.e. not at all). Looking at the other three ITN blurbs: the one about the Iberian lynx is interesting, although it's not obvious whether "endangered" is better or worse than "vulnerable"; I care about basketball even less than baseball; the fire in Mangaf is something that I consider worthy of mention. Two out of four, must try harder. Oh, and Mike Brumley is another baseballer. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  So you're saying that ITN should be tailored to what you're interested in? Or how do we determine what the average reader is interested in? I would gather that most English Wikipedia readers would be only be interested in news from English-speaking countries, but ITN specifically has an expansive view to include other worldwide events. Also, ITNR does list many different things, including sporting events, but don't know how those were originally chosen. Natg 19 (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I see no logic in Willie Mays or Shane Warne with 30 wiki pages being blurbed, or Jim Brown with 40 pages, while Oscar winners with 70 or 80 language pages aren't. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes the US systemic bias - nobody has heard some random baseball player. Secretlondon (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's really weird when a fimmaker with five or seven decades career doesn't get blurbed but a guy who was only active in a particular sport was blurbed because "he hit the ball really hard". BilboBeggins (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose but one possibility could be to limit RDs to 1 line (3 maximum) so as not to crowd ITN blurbs. Could have faster rotations similar to DYK, especially if there is a way to have a "ready" area and automate RD posting for more regular rotations. I think a big benefit to having an RD section is that it has provided for the improvement of a vast number of biographies, especially at time of death when there is more news coverage, with improvements in referencing, depth and copyediting. Spencer^T•C 06:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  "1 (3 maximum) line" is not quantifiable, screen widths vary greatly. One line on a 1920px monitor might be eight or nine on a mobile device. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for death blurbs?

For context, a death blurb is a blurb in ITN which reports that a notable individual has died. For a recent example: "American baseball player Willie Mays dies at the age of 93.". Because of the existence of the Recent Deaths (RD) section, a death blurb is often paired with an RD entry. Currently, death blurbs are a contentious topic among the editors of ITN. Some editors have expressed full opposition to death blurbs, saying that if there is an RD section then the death blurb is redundant. Another argument against death blurbs is that in Wikipedia's current state, death blurbs form an arbitrary two-tiered system for reporting deaths. However, there are some editors in favour of posting death blurbs, especially for highly notable deaths, such as Henry Kissinger. I suggest that if we are going to publish death blurbs, we should establish a clear set of criteria for when a death blurb should be published. As a starting point, I suggest the following example criteria:

If a death meets any of the following criteria, it is sufficiently notable to post a death blurb:

1. The death is of a head of state, head of government, or other notable government official in a position of power, such as Ebrahim Raisi's death by helicopter crash.
2. The death is unusual or notable in itself, such as Aaron Bushnell's death by self-immolation.

--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

1. is already the case.

We have a "transformative" criterion, which no one knows what it means. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The "transformative" criterion has been removed for a while. It is "major figure" which is still subjective, but less so, in that it should be readily apparent from sources used within the content of the article that themselves explain why the person is a great figure within their field. — Masem (t) 14:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I missed the removal, as far as I remember it was always transformative. Was it removed as the result of the discussion we started last year? BilboBeggins (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Well before then. I also had thought it had been there (as it definitely was in our guidelines at one point) but was removed at least 2 or more years ago. Masem (t) 17:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it was still used last year in discussion as an argument. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Lots of arguments are used, even if they are not mentioned at WP:ITNCRIT or WP:ITNRDBLURB. Its absence means an admin should not apply any extra weight to the argument —Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We've been blurbing upper-tier deaths since 2016, there's no time to start now. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am strongly against the proposed criteria in particular, and against narrowly-specified criteria in this area more generally, as a form of instruction creep. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I simply can't see this working. Are we not going to blurb Messi or Ronaldo when they pass? Besides, it would result in a lot of non blurb worthy deaths being posted. We don't need every repetition of the Enumclaw horse sex case to be posted. Bremps... 18:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Change to ITNELECTIONS

WP:ITNELECTIONS currently reads: "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government.. Back in March, there was clear consensus to change this so it wasn't only restricted to changes in the holder of office, though no amendment seems to have been implemented. I suggest changing it to "Changes in or reappointments of the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government...", which seems to have had the most support in the previous discussion. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support per my earlier suggestion, though probably a better wording would be "changes in, reelections or reappointments..., as reappointment may exclude reelection, usually being non-elective. Brandmeister^talk 08:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This does eliminate some ambiguity over what "reappointments" mean, though I think it would be ideal to try to find some catch-all phrase for ways in which someone could come to gain executive power, something like: "Decisions on who holds the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government..." though this still seems somewhat ambiguous to me. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Really we should just bump the old section back out of the archive and continue said discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the entire discussion (with all three proposed amendments) or just the first section of it? Gödel2200 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Well you're saying there was consensus but no closure. Honestly, looking back there seemed to be consensus AGAINST said amendments, but I'm obviously not going to stop you if you believe discussion should continue. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There was consensus for some amendment to not restrict ITNR to only changes in the holder of the executive, but there wasn't an agreed upon solution, while the other two proposals didn't have consensus. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Old man dies?

Common refrain whenever a person of disputed importance kicks the bucket at a ripe old age, sometimes well past their peaks. We would unambiguously benefit from a WP:OLDMANDIES, since the argument is repeatedly deployed, but I want all of your thoughts on whether the policy states that this is a valid or invalid argument. I'm leaning towards the latter. Bremps... 02:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @User:GenevieveDEon and @User:InedibleHulk as the two editors whose dispute inspired me to propose this. Bremps... 03:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

We need a way of preventing the inevitable pile-on of American editors (our largest cohort) telling us how wonderful a person every dead basketballer, bseballer and American footballer was. Give Ron Barassi a chance. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've suggested before, there is a mostly objective start to evaluating the "great figure" blurbs, that being the article has clear, in-depth coverage of the person's importance, legacy, and/or impact, sourced to good quality RSes, and clear to a reader outside the field in place within the article, and that doesn't mean just simply being famous or a household name, nor simply having a lot of awards, nor simply having impressive stats from their sport. That should eliminate the bulk of the vague handwaving that many attempted blurbs noms get. It is not fully objective as there could be such content but considered thin, or the content doesn't exist but editors are working to expand it with long-form obits, etc. I will note the last several blurbs over the last month have had this type of feature, so it seems to be on the right track. Masem (t) 04:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Notable non-American Ismail Kadare is what got us here. Maybe lose the blinders. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Or that sports person last week who no-one had heard of? Secretlondon (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've said it for dozens of people, some American, some wonderful, some neither. For me, at least, none of that matters. What matters is whether the proposed blurb goes Nationality-Job-Name dies at Age. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your repeated assertion that no-one had heard of Willie Mays, in the teeth of the evidence, is not helping your position. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Valid That's exactly what happens, most of the time. Sometimes it's a woman and sometimes we know a place and/or cause of death, but it's never much more than Old Someone Dies. I don't think I'm the sort of old man who needs some Mandy-lookin' guideline to tell me he has a point, though, so Oppose Codification Error. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OMD is the quicker, less shouty and less likely to be misread as dirty laundry option, if something must sprout from this at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Good call. Bremps... 06:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There's always room for more 80s synthpop. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Or just redirect to WP:HUMOR. —Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There's (usually) nothing newsworthy or funny about an old person dying. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've always AGFed that it was an attempt at humor. Otherwise it seems just plain insensitive. —Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That really is the other issue - the more we see blurb shouts for RDs, the more insensitive comments we see while trying to argue the importance of a life/death, and in the immediate aftermath. Perhaps for that reason, having OMD link to a reasoned explanation would be valuable. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, either there is an "Old Man Dies" policy, and we all agree not to post the likes of Queen Elizabeth II dying, or there is no such policy, and we have to go through the grind of finding consensus via the ITN process - as for any other nomination to ITN. Option 3 would be to create a separate RD section, as several other Wikipedias have done, which would delegate the whole issue to those editors really caring about obituaries - but sadly this option has so far failed to gain traction. Khuft (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've definitely shifted to "only blurb if the death is the story", so I'd say OMD is a valid argument summary. Every concept has exceptions, so I don't think Khuft's all or nothing is a concern for when actual legends do pass. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've just wracked my brain to come up with a currently-living legend who I think should incontrovertibly be posted just for dying, and the only one I could think of is Dolly Parton. So make of that what you will. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Paul McCartney? HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Mick Jagger. Or Patrick Stewart. Actually, probably William Shatner, too. BD2412 T 00:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

David Attenborough? Jimmy Carter? Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

For a real surprise, Keith Richards. HiLo48 (talk)

He, Hulk Hogan and anyone else dubbed "The Immortal" have some potential shock value. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Professional wrestling is a bit, erm, fake though. Secretlondon (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Not an endorsement, but so is acting. —Bagumba (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

thatsbait.gif Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So the issue with all of these is that they 1) would need better arguments for opposing than merely "old man dies." We know it's normal for old men to die, but so are lots of things. But 2) do we really want to have a discussion on each of these, just after they died, just how significant their work/role was? I don't think a WP:OMD page could really help all that much, as it doesn't solve this second issue at all. At least when people currently post "oppose-old man dies," we can just ignore them and read the messages with meat to them instead. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Maplestrip that the underlying issues are the need for better arguments, and the difficulty of having a well-sourced and concise discussion of someone's significance in the immediate aftermath of their death. Stylistically, I dislike the use of 'Old Man Dies' in place of a !vote in particular. It harms the readability of the discussion - broadly speaking, we expect editors' initial submissions in this discussion to start with 'Oppose', 'Neutral', 'Support', or similar. Starting it with a terse and slightly flippant summary of the story is less helpful. "'Old Man Dies' is a routine story and doesn't need to be given a blurb" is fine as an argument, and I sometimes agree with it, but it would be conducive to good, readable debate if we all acted like sensible editors rather than daytime talk show guests trying to pull out 'zingers'. Related to this is the problem that conducting our debates in clichés is a process with diminishing returns. I've argued against references to the journalistic 'bus plunge' concept in the past for the same reason - we should be treating stories on their merits, not on how they relate to canned concepts which encode a lot of cultural bias. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment The old-man-dies argument is equivalent to opposing an item relating to a single country, which is listed on WP:ITNCDONT. Perhaps we can consider adding this as well in order to easily dismiss such unproductive votes in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they're similar, much less equivalent. OMD isn't in the Oppose family. It means someone wants an RD nom posted as a regular RD, if at all. Something like EXAMPLIANSGOHOME is nowhere near as Neutral, largely because there's no other place for uninational news. I think it's possible you might just want these sorts of votes more easily dismissed in the future because they've been producing results you don't like (not that there's anything wrong with that). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not just follow the aforementioned WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY precedent where we have two opposing essays? I'd be willing to help draft NOTOLDMANDIES, and even OLDMANDIES though I don't agree with it.. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You mention WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY; but putting those in the same paragraph as the proposed WP:NOTOLDMANDIES and WP:OLDMANDIES draws my attention to the problem we get when words are converted to all-capitals run together without spaces, in that where do we imagine the missing spaces should be? Consider WP:OLDMANDIES - this might be construed as "Old Mandies", referring to several people named Mandy who are now drawing their pensions. Or perhaps Gary Oldman is no longer with us. You get the same thing with web domains except that it's all lowercase. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think InedibleHulk brought that point up above, referring to the proposal as some Mandy-lookin' guideline. Either way, this is why Template:About exists and WP:OMD would circumvent this issue, while also sounding more respectful. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that having a page titled WP:OMD is not actually a bad idea. All it has to say is "this is not a fully-formed argument." That's pretty much the full text we should put on this page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose OMD is a thought-terminating cliché and so encourages the opposing camps to chant such slogans at each other rather than presenting evidence and intelligently analysing it. It also seems deliberately rude and unpleasant, contrary to the ancient precept, de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I mightn't change how it seems to you or anyone else, but I can promise you all I've never deliberately used it dickishly. When presented with evidence of news that a man or woman has died at the age of 70-120 and nothing else, it's just beyond my poor brain to summarize any plainer.

  It is intended to terminate any immediate thought of posting everyday news of some old people dying and nothing else while using RD for other old people who too simply die. It has never stopped the next voter from weighing in with either reasonable counterargument or a contrary cliché ("global icon", "living legend", "one of the best") and sometimes leads to longer talks in less constrictive venues like this.

  All that aside, it's not clear (to me) whether you're supporting or opposing the creation of an OMD guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  ... but I can promise you all I've never deliberately used it dickishly: As I said earlier, I had always AGfed on this. Now that there's been discussion on OMD, individiuals can decide if WP:RESPONSIBLE applies or not. —Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  You said you AGFed it as an attempt at humour, not dickishness. I tried to clarify then, as I'm about to try now, it's not funny. If you're the sort of person who tends to view plain insensitivity as dickishness rather than distant objectivity, yes, I can see how this makes me look like the sort of person who'd do (what I consider) truly dickish things in an RD nom, like bring up the subject's moral, legal or artistic failings from years ago or oppose for all of their moral, legal or artistic ventures having been (arguable) failures. Sorry for that. From here on, rather than risk offensively amusing, bemusing or demusing anyone, I'll cast such votes as "OMD" alone, then follow up with anything else (if applicable). My Covered By Ongoings will also now appear CBO. If someone asks, another regular can explain how it's short for something. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  The relevant bullet point at WP:ITNRDBLURB is "Major figure", so "not a major enough figure" (it's unfortunate the community doesn't have more objective criteria) could be a counter. —Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, but it's just not for me. I think a major figure (as I understand that crew) can die just as plain and simple a death as anyone. It's that I "go not gently" against, never the "hills and valleys" of life itself (as "a major dick" might). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• If I am understanding what "Old man dies" here means correctly, it is just a shorthand way of saying: "While this persons life may have been very notable, their death in and of itself was not, and I think that means this should not be blurbed." According to WP:ITNRDBLURB: "The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb." This in no way invalidates the argument "The death was not notable in and of itself" as a reason to oppose (as some editors claim). All this says is that blurbs will be decided when "there is consensus" to post. Essentially, this allows two opposed viewpoints to have equal validity, which I think is a sub-optimal situation. Ideally, I think it would be best to hold a discussion on whether this status-quo should change. In the meantime, I don't have much of a stance one way or another on the use of "Old man dies", but it certainly could be misinterpreted, so I personally would refrain from using it. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  The death was not notable in and of itself: Is this referring to the cause of death, or the overall reaction after the death? —Bagumba (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Basically the cause of death or whatever effects the death may have, but some editors would also use the argument regardless of the reaction after the death. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think people who argue that the major figure criteria was met accept that the cause of death was not notable. Perhaps you are arguing that their obituaries and coverage of their death is not prominent, and conclude that they must not be a major figure? —Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the people who support RD blurbs usually accept that the cause of death was not notable. But other people can use this exact point, that the cause of death was not notable, as a reason to oppose, and both viewpoints are perfectly valid. What I am saying is that it is not ideal to let both opposed viewpoints have equal validity. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

But other people can use this exact point, that the cause of death was not notable, as a reason to oppose, and both viewpoints are perfectly valid.: I don't believe they are both valid. As written, WP:ITNRDBLURB allows blurbs for "Death as the main story" or "Major figures"; it does not require that both are necessarily met. Thus, "non-notable cause of death" arguments should be discounted, as it's not the only path to blurbing a death. (This is somewhat similar to how "not WP:ITNR" is not an accepted reason to oppose blurbing a recurring event".) —Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ITNRDBLURB of course allows for the deaths of major figures to be posted, but it does not require that discussion focus on whether the person has a large enough legacy to be posted. All it says is that the deaths of major figures "may" merit a blurb, and says that they are usually posted if "there is consensus that the death merits a blurb." This "consensus" certainly could include arguments in opposition due to something similar to "the death was not notable in and of itself"; there is nothing explicitly disallowing this. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Whi h is essential why there is this huge issue, because we make no attempt (inadvently I believe) to define how to treat a BLP as a major figure. We're it to me, my metric starts with the existence of a substantial, well sourced Legacy or Impact section, as to make it clear to the reader coming from the main page if why this person was listed as a blurb. But in plenty of ITNC nominations for urbs, some think that just bring famous or well known is sufficient, which I think has major bias problems and is far from objective. We likely should should try to put some reasonable expectations of what a great figure should demonstrate rather that leaving that nebulous term out there. Masem (t) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

...we make no attempt (inadvently I believe) to define how to treat a BLP as a major figure: There have been plenty of attempts—its a perrenial topic. They just haven't led to a consensus more objective than the "sui generis basis" status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's be honest - the REAL issue here is we have more or less no criteria at all for who qualifies as worthy of a blurb when it isn't a "death as the main story" situation. I will say, again, for the umpteenth time, the best solution is to just allow such blurbs for when death is the main story. We have RD, we can list most deaths there. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, if there is no scope for multiple paragraphs of sourced prose (excluding quotes) about the person's death then that's a good sign that the death shouldn't be blurbed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless the death is the main story (like an assassination), there's no requirement to have multiple paragraphs about the deaths for a blurb. There should be multiple paragraphs to justify the "great figure" reasoning for a blurb posting (which likely will include reactions from others in that field on news of the death to justify why the person was a great figure), and there of course should be an update to source the death, but many great figures die absent a prolonged battle with health or the like, giving no reason to have a huge block of text about the death specifically. Masem (t) 12:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

And if it were a requirement, some would try to game the system with an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of thoughts and prayers from social media posts. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the major figures criteria of WP:ITNRDBLURB says that it is determined on a sui generis basis. —Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

And this then means that it becomes a vote by the handful of editors that post their opinions at ITN. with the admins getting a supervote.

The clear fix for this is to give all such deaths a short description, as other languages do. The blurb/no blurb issue then largely disappears. Without any description, RD entries such as Ismail Kadare are useless because they are just a name that most of us don't recognise. His short description is just two words: "Albanian writer". How hard is that? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for an article quality test for ITN

If an article about an event can't account for who, what, where, when, why and how, then it cannot be posted. Exceptions would include where a) one factor is inherently unknowable quickly and has been described by WP:RS as such, and b) WP:IAR. This would be a purely exclusionary test, passing it would just be one hurdle (along with notability). Call it WP:5W1H. Any thoughts? Bremps... 03:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Are RDs (the usual kind) exempt? Because I have no idea where, how or why Sika died, and I'm the guy who knows Sika stuff. This newfangled hurdle would surely be too much for a great many others. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I was more thinking of fires and tornadoes and insurgencies. Yes, usually a family would want to keep some privacy so RD should be exempt. Bremps... 05:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Insurgents will tend to want keep certain things quiet, too, I suspect (as will counterinsurgents). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the cat's out of the bag after the attack. I don't think ITN has the capability to unearth something still being planned. Bremps... 06:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The Whatcat's out after the what-have-you, but the question of whodunnit often remains indefinitely, even if sources generally link them to a named group. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

And while ITN certainly can't unearth a plot (WP:NOR), it can certainly relay it, as it did with the 2022 German coup d'état plot. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In terms of Bremps point, there is a far larger problem beyond ITN with excessively detailed treating of news with editors creating articles on any random news event that fails NOTNEWS and NEVENT, which in turn creates all this ITNCs about disasters (natural and man-made). Such articles are usually hastily made and lack context and impact. It goes back to the fact we're supposed to be summarizing for the long-term, not trying to capture everything in the short-term. That's what Wikinews is for. — Masem (t) 12:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• De facto I think this already exists. Stubs and articles lacking basic details are almost never posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• We should apply the principle to such proposals and !votes. If people don't present evidence and examples to back up their ideas and opinions then they should be discounted. See evidence-based practice and an essential guide for further information. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly right. I’m with you here. We need to do it that way. Especially if RD’s aren’t given their own section separate from ITN. Meanwhile, Ismail Kadare was not posted as a blurb even though there was consensus to do so from the very beginning. From day one. Instead the RD/Blurb proposal was closed down because it was stale. Without making an unfounded accusation, I have to seriously wonder if that’s because no administrator was going to put their neck on the line without indisputable consensus. The blowback would’ve been huge. Man this is silly. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  That Kadare wasn't posted because of, in reviewing, a few editors basically using "old man dies" and not acknowledging that we have the "great figures" allowance, thus throwing doubt into support for posting, is a major major problem. Those !votes should have been outright ignored. One could talk to that they didn't feel Kadare was a great figure which is a reasonable opinion to express in a !vote, but the opposition here was limited to nonworkable arguments, and this is where we need posting admins to be far more aggressive in ignoring unworkable !votes. Masem (t) 12:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is a fine article quality check, but I don't think it's necessary. A speedy close of an unfinished article could be unhelpful, and arguments about whether an article meets the requirements even moreso. If we assume that all good-faith !voters actually check the quality of the article before !voting, there shouldn't be a need for specific rules like these. As a sidenote, I am not worried about what kind of text "counts" for this; I think zero available information on why a terrorist attack happened would be sufficient for "why," for example. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)