Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ITN/R)

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

5 news items[edit]

Currently there's 5 news items, but it frequently fluctuates between 4 or 5. I feel it's best to have 5 news items permanently displayed as it gives more time for important news items to be visible. For instance, a series of sporting events in quick succession can easily bump important international news off the front page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of items can vary due to WP:ITNBALANCE.—Bagumba (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number should vary with the freshness and significance of the items. If there's lots of high impact news then we should just take more space, as needed. Note that DYK increased their standard size from 8 to 9 items recently. They didn't consult any other sections or worry about balance because that's not a significant issue or the responsibility of any particular section. If there's some main page format issue, that's best handled by WP:ERRORS which covers the entire main page. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bulleted items (ITN, DYK, SA) are easier to handle than FA which is entirely in prose. ITN has blurbs that stay there for days (DYK stays for hours, and SA stays for a day); this means ITN is the most flexible among the 4 Main Page sections in adjusting its length to compensate with the other sections. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reality is that the community promotes ITN blurbs so infrequently that the bottom items are typically over a week old as it is. —Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to not post 2024 NCAA Division I softball season winners[edit]

Posting here as ITN has made a decision to not post 2024 NCAA Division I softball season winners of the World Series. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football and basketball are already heavily opposed as is. More so softball. Congrats, Sooners, but maybe next time. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral, but WP:ITNCDONT is arbitrarily enforced here:

Please do not ... Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. After this, I would be fine removing those from ITN. “In The News” doesn’t actually mean “in the news”, since the first-ever D1 college softball four-peat (called historic by several RS, even The NY Times and ESPN and Associated Press), can’t get posted, despite being the sports news of the week. Btw, this post was basically just to log that NCAA softball’s current consensus is a hard oppose for ITN posting. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am following ESPN on social media. All they had all day was the NBA Finals, and even that would see even opposition from the people here. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't post any college sports, other than the "March Madness", which for some reason sneaked into ITN/R many years ago and has now been grandfathered in. Essentially we regard these as second-tier competitions, akin to the FA Cup in England, and there simply isn't capacity in ITN to post all of them. All four of the major professional US sports championships do get posted every year and there are those who think sporting coverage is already too much.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... there simply isn't capacity in ITN to post all of them: Nobody wants all of them posted. But there is some capacity, as currently the bottom UEFA blurb is almost 2-weeks old news. —Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. college sports and the UK football pyramid are not analogous, but they keep getting compared here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: No way is the FA Cup "second-tier". It is the biggest football tournament in the UK, bar none. It's open to all football clubs, no matter how big or small, who are members of the Football Association. Just getting to the final is a Big Deal (you need to win a minimum of five matches, losing none at all) - and winning it is an even bigger deal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear: a US source using the term 'four-peat' about a non-US team isn't evidence of 'four-peat' seeing non-US usage. And while we're on international sources, the BBC did not cover the Sooners' victory at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, three-peat, four-peat and five-peat were used in the Philippines and were very much understood on what those meant. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Threepeat is alright, since it uses the root word, but the rest are lazy and piss me off. As does the idea that social media is news. As does softball. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about twopeat? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about peat? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason to close this nomination so quickly. Regardless of whether it's ITNR, the event is notable enough for a discussion due to breaking of a world record. Most of the opposes should have been struck per ITNCDONT (and, fwiw, I agree with the discussion below that not ITNR isn't a good enough reason to oppose). Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Add NCAA Division I softball tournament (Women's College World Series) as a recurring item[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdrawn due to unanimous opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the NCAA Division I softball tournament, also known as the Women's College World Series, be added to the ITN/R (list of ITN recurring items)?

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick notes: NCAA D1 Men and Women basketball winners are on ITN/R, so NCAA material is eligible for ITN/R consideration.

Survey[edit]

  • Yes/Support Addition — NCAA D1 WCWS gets a lot of RS attention. After all, this is “in the news”. For example, the 2024 winner (who won within the last 8 hours) received full national RS media articles from the Associated Press, The New York Times, USA Today, AOL, ESPN and CNN, as well as a ton of smaller/regional RS outlets. The current consensus was to not post the 2024 winner almost entirely because it is not listed already on ITN/R. This RFC, which I started, is not meant to change that consensus, but if something is opposed almost entirely because it isn’t here and not because it isn’t “in the news”, a discussion needs to be had in order to determine if said recurring event should actually be on ITN/R. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comment above. We post a lot of different sports as it is, and adding this would open the door to NCAA football, hockey and baseball wanting in too. I get that college sports are a different beast in the US than it is here in the UK, and generate a lot of interest, but ultimately these are still second-tier and amateur events, with lower significance than the major pro championships.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your !vote, but if I may ask, why is opening that door bad? NCAA basketball is already listed on ITN/R. NCAA WCWS Game 1 received a record viewership and by definition it is what this page is intended for: “in the news”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is as I noted, there are already a large number of sporting events at ITN/R, and we're trying to strike a balance here. As you say, it's in the news, but then so are a large number of topics - the media has to publish things day-in-day-out, so there's way more being covered than ITN is designed to handle. We could change our purpose and become more like a "news ticker", churning through any story in the news with an article, but that would require a strong consensus for such a change of purpose. Similarly, despite Bagumba's comment above about the "instructions" regarding stories pertaining to one country, that is something that weighs into consideration for many editors. There are loads of countries in the world, and something that's big in one of them might not necessarily have the global encyclopedic reach to be worthy of inclusion. Ultimately, the decision on whether to include is a subjective one and people will weigh things in their own way. For me, amateur second-tier competitions such as the NCAA, and indeed the university Boat Race over here, which is the closest equivalent maybe and was removed from ITN/R last year, aren't of sufficient interest to a broad audience to rate inclusion. If March Madness were not included yet, I don't think there'd be consensus to add it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably more the case that the "instructions" w.r.t one country are in practice more nuanced than they are actually written. In which case, as written, they have been oversimplified.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Some events pertaining to one country, e.g. national elections, are eminently postable. Others aren't.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Do we have any national non-college softball titles in ITNR already? In any case, there's been a general and IMHO justified opposition to college-level events being ITNR, including removing the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, which is one of the most famous rowing events in the world. As for 'fourpeat', it's a stupid word. 'Threepeat' makes tolerable sense because it sounds like 'repeat', but just adding one to it makes gibberish of it. And reliable sources using sensationalist language does not compel us to do so. If a lot of newspapers referred to a heatwave as a 'scorcher', we would still call it a heatwave. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 95 § Add College Football Playoff National Championship to ITNR failed in 2023, with the close stating In order to consider this for ITN/R, there has to be a record of regular posting in the recent past ... However, it's potentially circular if opposing arguments at the recent softball nom cited its absence on ITNR (see #"It's not in ITNR" below).—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, so see my !vote below. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not every college-level competition needs to be ITNR. Yes, events of national relevance can be posted to ITN, but it doesn't mean that we should only look at the viewership in one country to decide what is or isn't ITN. Getting news coverage from multiple American outlets is too low a bar for ITN, let alone for an ITNR qualification, especially since there are already a lot of sports-related and US-related items. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The quality of the articles that I see for this show that individual pages are far away from what we would even post to start with (all tables, no prose). I also think we should look to test one of the professional softball leagues first before starting with a college-level version. --Masem (t) 12:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any and all amateur student sports. We shouldn't have any of them on ITNR (or post them via ITNC...). I realise that NCAA basketball is already on ITNR, but I would prefer to remove that than expand it to other sports. Softball isn't even the second most notable US college sport. Modest Genius talk 12:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose generally we get a sports season/event article posted a couple of times and then nominate it for WP:ITNR, not the other way round as this proposal wants to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have football and basketball covered at the collegiate level, and that's where we should leave it. Baseball and or softball do nit get nearly the coverage either of those other two sports get. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, NCAA football is not covered on ITN/R. Only Men/Women basketball. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I always forget this one. I do believe it should be, but the very fact that we have determined the CFB championship isn't notable enough should further suggest the even less notable CWS items aren't either. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have cancelled the RFC. Even though I started it less than 24 hours ago, it is a clear WP:SNOW oppose, with myself being the only editor in support and every other editor in opposition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"It's not in ITNR"[edit]

It's a given that an ITN candidate not on WP:ITNR needs to have it's notability vetted. However, not already being on ITNR is not a valid reason to oppose. Some ideas to avoid these arguments are:

  1. Add this to WP:ITNCDONT.
  2. Have {{ITN candidate}} put a standard notice explicitly stating that this is not an ITNR item—preclude !voters from needing to repeat this—while also stating that its absence from ITNR is not an acceptable reason to oppose.
  3. Not a problem. Do nothing.

Other ideas? —Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support #1 - this should definitely be on ITNCDONT - arguing against things because they're not on ITNR is a major source of inertia and institutional bias. I'm probably guilty of it myself from time to time, but that doesn't make it OK. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1, definitely not the point of ITNR (also, while we're at it, I wouldn't be opposed to also adding "but we posted/didn't post X which was less/more newsworthy!" to WP:ITNCDONT). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support adding to ITNCDONT. It only makes sense as being a thing we specifically denote.
Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 I've tried to stress this, that ITNR is only a sufficient condition to eliminate concerns over notability of the event. Anything that might look like an INTR but doesn't meet it (like the recent Starliner stuff) still can be nominated via a normal ITNC, its exclusion from ITNR not a bar. The only aspect here is when it comes to areas in ITNR where we already have a lot of events to be posted, namely in assc. football; in such cases, it likely is reasonable to say that a non-ITNR tourney result may be argued that we already cover football a lot in ITN already so these sub-regional or national ones likely shouldn't be posted. --Masem (t) 12:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we add this to WP:ITNCDONT, someone will have to comment by referring to it. If we explicitly state it, someone will still have to comment by referring to the notice. If we do nothing, someone will have to comment that it's not a valid argument to oppose. No matter which way we go, we won't avoid the unnecessary ensuing discussion, so the poster would still have to carefully go through the whole discussion on the nomination. After all, it's relatively rare that someone opposes a nomination because the event isn't listed on ITNR, and virtually every experienced editor knows that it's a very poor argument.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Codifying it makes it clear that the community supports it, and admins would then be more empowered to discount !votes as needed. Otherwise, it's unclear if a participant is just spouting their own rules and beliefs, which often happens w/ ITN. —Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd probably go with #2 as it adds more context than #1, but it's still only an incremental change compared to #3.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 and I'd like to see more enforcement of ITNCDONT by striking offending votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this too. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 as if it's not WP:ITNR, then notability needs to be discussed rather than a blanket no statement. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the wisdom of this proposal and generally agree. However, if I'm understanding the basis here, this is because of the WCWS item, which was supposedly largely voted down as "not ITN/R". I think sports events are actually a valid situation in which such a vote makes sense, because otherwise it's really hard to verifiably argue unfavorably on notability, because generally speaking the common metric for sports notability is "coverage", and pretty much any large publication covers so much these days. So therefore I would be in favor of doing nothing and leaving when such a vote makes sense up to admin discression. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be really bad if this were readable as disallowing "*'''Oppose''' [posting the launch], we'll post it as ITNR when it reaches lunar orbit. ~~~~", or even "*'''Oppose''', basketball is already over-represented in ITNR where we're not allowed to oppose on significance, and this competition is plainly not comparable to the ones we already have. ~~~~". —Cryptic 21:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it should definitely be specified that any argument more elaborate than just "Oppose, not ITNR ~~~~" is fine even if it mentions ITNR status in the argument. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was on WP:ITNCDONT when I used to be active here. I wonder if it was removed with consensus or unilaterally. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like it or not, ITN/R is part of the furniture at ITN and so we should expect reference to it in discussions. The OP gives no evidence so here's a fresh example. In the current discussion of William Anders, Nottheking makes an emphatic point about the death of heads of state and ITN/R. The argument seems complex but the general idea is that it's an indicator of precedent and practice. This seems reasonable so heavy-handed interference by striking such references would generate disputes and drama which we don't need. See also WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add first launch of crewed spaceflights by a new entity[edit]

The first launches of crewed spaceflights by a new entity (country or private company) are inherently notable and should be added to ITNR. This would only apply to the first time a country or company has launched a crewed spacecraft, future further launches wouldn't be inherently notable. For further context/elaboration see Nottheking's comment from this discussion, which this proposal is based on. Happily888 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I don't think 'inherently notable' means anything useful here. I also think spaceflight is overrepresented at ITNR already. And as noted immediately above, I definitely don't think worthy stories should lose out for not being on ITNR, so a lot of these cases might well be worth posting - but I don't think that there's anything inherent or inevitable about that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable doesn't mean ITN worthy. Every time there's a new mayorship election, that's notable, doesn't mean we need to put it on the main page. I find it unlikely that if a genuinely important space flight happens that we would have any opposition to it being added. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The advent of commercial flight means that we could potentially see a lot of these. Making them ITNR doesn't make sense, but as noted a few sections above, that doesn't mean they can't be nominated as a normal ITNC entry. --Masem (t) 12:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We removed routine crewed spaceflights from ITNR for good reasons. Any 'firsts' in that field can be considered on a case-by-case basis by ITNC. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, we still have TOO MANY spaceflight items in ITN. I think we vastly overstate their significance and the duration of coverage we get. New rocket types are commercial news, IMO. If one is noteworthy enough to post (as Starliner ended up being). Then it can be judged on it's own merits. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying this is an oppose vote. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add English whisky (Jan 1)[edit]

I think that English whisky should be added to ITN as it has had significant coverage in various secondary sources. ChefBear01 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it in the news? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most recently it has achieved many international awards but it was established January 1 2016
Establishement
[1][2]
Accomplishments
[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] ChefBear01 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is certainly better than a four-peat, I guess? Howard the Duck (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear it has a very peaty taste, perhaps even a five-peat? 😁  — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski@Howard the Duck
the article contains more information that can clarify its notability what is four-peat?ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This thing isn't currently in the news. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to propose it at WP:ITN/C, although if there isn't one specific, high-prestige event that got into mainstream (non-specialist) news in the last few days, I genuinely don't think it has any chance. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: Would the establishment of English whisky qualify to be included in the list of yearly events for the 1st January?. ChefBear01 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what ITN is for. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChefBear01: it sounds like you're thinking of the On This Day section rather than In The News... Even for that though, you'd need a definite event with a date and year, that's cited as such to reliable sources. It doesn't seem like 1 January 2006 is a date strongly associated with this in the sources... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru:, my understanding is that the establishment of the English whisky Co (St Georges Distillery) is used as the founding point of of English whisky.ChefBear01 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8405783.stm
  2. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/08/english-whisky-invasion-threatens-scottish-dram-262600.html
  3. ^ Evans, Matt (July 12, 2018). "First Lakes single malt sold for £7,900". Scotch Whisky.com.
  4. ^ Brooker, Alice (September 8, 2022). "White Peak breaks record at auction". The Spirits Business.
  5. ^ Wales, Bethany (November 30, 2023). "The English Distillery releases country's oldest whisky". Eastern Daily Press.
  6. ^ Greenwood, Darren (2023-12-06). "Coopers King Distillery releases 'net zero' whisky". York Press. Retrieved 2023-12-10.
  7. ^ "'World's first' Anglo-Scots whisky created | Scotch Whisky". scotchwhisky.com. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
  8. ^ Malczewski, Kate (2021-12-01). "Samuel Gulliver named official English Rugby whisky". The Spirits Business. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
  9. ^ "By George! – English Whisky at Gauntleys". www.theexchange.uk.net. April 4, 2024. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
  10. ^ "Whisky Magazine Awards 2022: Global winners revealed". TheDrinksReport.com. Retrieved 2024-04-23.
  11. ^ Japhe, Brad. "The World's Best Single Malt Whisky—According To The 2024 World Whiskies Awards". Forbes. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  12. ^ "ADI 2024 International Spirits Competition Awards". American Distilling Institute. Retrieved 2024-05-08.
  13. ^ "Cotswolds Founders Choice Takes Double Gold At SFWSC 2019". www.scotchmaltwhisky.co.uk. Retrieved 2024-05-08.
  14. ^ Booth, Martin (April 30, 2024). "International Accolade for Bristol Whisky". Bristol-24/7.
  15. ^ Norris, by Phil (2024-05-27). "Cotswolds whisky distillery named most popular in UK for second year running". Gloucestershire Live. Retrieved 2024-05-30.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=1227999922"