Note that Lihaas (talk · contribs) has created a proposal to abolish ITN, without informing anyone here. This is the standard notification I'd have expected him to leave here. Shocking behaviour. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposal was closed. Spencer^T♦C 20:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

shocking behaviour for not AGF...i did post a message on the talk page at ITN!Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ummm....this is the talk page for ITN, and no, you didn't.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

May be they made a mistake. They did post a message to the talk page of WT:ITN/R [1] although they didn't actually make it clear they were proposing to abolish just said 'A discussion is ongoing on the general value of ITN as eing grossly subjective (in stark contrast to DYK) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#ITN'. Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any good suggestions for new material, but four of our seven bullets of ITN are currently about changes of government, which doesn't really reflect great diversity. Suggestions? --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There has been a long, painful process to streamline this since an election posting about Kiribati made it onto the main page. Unfortunately it seems headed towards a trainwreck. Such is the nature of the wiki decision making process. Colipon+(Talk) 14:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that we all agree that ITN's role is not as a newsfeed, I'd have no objections to finding Kiribati's election in ITN. I do have strong reservations about the 7 slots being dominated by elections in countries of any size. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well thats part and parcel of ITNR and more so when the perfect timing for a ticet test was rejectedd y lazy editors who dont wnat to partcipate in discussion but then go ahead and demand "wider consensus" for changesLihaas (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please continue discussion here regarding elections. The current ITNR guidelines are still unworkable. New ideas and consensus-building is necessary. Colipon+(Talk) 17:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Any chance we could structure the conversation a little better than that? If we're going to solve a problem, it's a good idea to define exactly what the problem is. I have my own views. But this issue is very coloured by intense views. In my mind the biggest driver of a problem is the view by some (many?) here that we should be influenced by a "mine is bigger than yours" philosophy. (I'm mainly talking about countries.) I saw the ticker as a solution to that, allowing any election which has a decent write up to at least crack a mention. So, what problem are we addressing? HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably didn't help that the last elections discussion got sidetracked into the whole ticker business! I think ITNR as a whole needs to be looked at, not just elections, because there are a number of sports on there that clearly hold no significance to most people that need to come off (e.g. the Indy 500 or Premier League are important; the Gaelic Games final — no one really cares). —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Language like "no one really cares" is never helpful. I for one am more interested in Gaelic sports than the Indy 500, which is almost exclusively of interest to Americans. (Do note my careful and diplomatic insertion of the word "almost".) I don't expect the whole world to be interested in Gaelic sports, but please don't call me a nobody ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Indy500 is not a great example. But the Premier League most certainly is of worldwide repute; one can argue that the NBA is as well. Perhaps, stretching the imagination, we can even include IPL, for cricket (by number of viewers). But Hurling is not of wide international interest, by any stretch of the imagination. Colipon+(Talk) 22:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Indy 500 is a very poor example, but it was used to try to convince this global audience, by an experienced editor. We are all biased. How do we tackle those sports which are of massive interest within one country but of little interest elsewhere (even if that one country is very big ;-) )? HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On Indy specifically, being held on the same day as the more glamourous Monaco Grand Prix doesn't help matters. That doesn't look like a particularly constructive opening remark, but re-enforces the general point about how subjective these things are. Hilo has recognised precisely why we need either ITNR or an improved replacement: to ensure that we don't repeat every event-by-event discussion on an annual basis. It's also worth pointing out that a lot of the things on ITNR don't get posted because people don't bother to work on them/nominate them. —WFC— 23:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I like our current, longstanding approach: inclusion. This prevents arguments and negates any potential biases. It isn't as though ITN is receiving too many updates (and as WFC noted, many events from ITN/R are omitted because other criteria aren't met), so I see no motive to weed out "less important" sports (thereby triggering endless debate). —David Levy 23:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If we get an elections ticker a sports ticker should be easy to add. Thne wed remove 2 notches from ITN to leave for sports and electionsLihaas (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think sports ticker would fix some serious issues with the presentation of those articles on ITN. Our fundamental assumption over the years has been that content on the main page is best relayed through a blurb, but I would say it is more intuitive to the readership if we just posted the article link itself. When the NBA playoffs are going on, it would be great to have a 'sticky' for easy access on the main page - and that page gets millions of hits. Reporting who wins the final, in my view, is counter-intuitive, since everyone who is interested in the subject will very likely know who has won, usually from another source. Colipon+(Talk) 22:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(responding to Strange Passerby) I tend to agree: there is clearly too much on ITNR, much of it is on there due to pet interests rather than fundamental worth. I suspect this is part of the problem we are having at the moment: if good noms can't get through because they are masked by a weak ITNR item that does not have clear consensus for the status that does not engender enthusiasm for participating in the section as a whole. Attempts to modify ITNR (removing items especially) tends to get mired in collective indecisiveness. I did make a proposal to try and ease that [2] but while that did attract some attention it was clear there was no widespread appetite for it. I'm not entirely sure how to go from there - the only thing I can think of would be a poll and retain only the most popular items but that would go against a lot of convention. It's clear the current mechanisms are not working. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there are a lot of issues with ITNR. With sports, I can think of two examples that I would get rid of right off the bat: Hurling, and the Grand National horse race. Perhaps AFL final, or Grey Cup final. These are blatant examples of systemic bias. The Irish sports are there, in my example, only to counter British sports, which are there because of anglo-centrism. There will be a lot of shouting and spewing blood when anyone raises these issues, so the ITNR situation is very sticky. Even if 70% of editors agree to remove these, the other 30% can effectively filibuster: the result of the discussion is "no consensus". And since they only happen once a year, no one feels enough 'passion' or personal involvement to carry on lengthy discussions, present a case, and finally strike it down. Thus we are left with an imperfect ITNR, which no one is 100% happy about, but cannot do much to change. Colipon+(Talk) 21:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm not far away from starting to oppose ITNR items on notability grounds: I'm aware that that will not be popular but its very existence depends on it being widely accepted as the consensus of the community. It is clear that at the moment it doesn't have that, and without that its privileged position has no legitimacy, and there is no reason items on there can't be challenged for notability at ITN/C. That isn't something I'd want to do but if it can't be fixed perhaps we should ditch it, either in fact or in practice. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And perhaps there's some (systemic?) bias on display there. One reason Gaelic football is if interest outside Ireland is because of the AFL (I'll explain why if anyone's interested), which is of massive (a very deliberately chosen word) interest in half of Australia, where hardly anyone cares about American football, baseball and where basketball is a minor sport. I'm not pushing any particular line, but I am trying to demonstrate that the world is a very diverse place. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Long before the creation of ITN/R, the community agreed to automatically include every major sport's premier championship event(s), provided that the requisite article updates occur. Do you assert that hurling, Australian rules football and/or Canadian football aren't major sports? Alternatively, do you dispute that the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship, AFL Grand Final and Grey Cup (respectively) are those sports' premier championship events? —David Levy 23:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My impression of ITNR is that originally it was a good faith attempt to omit discussion on events of obvious and widespread significance - say, a US presidential election, or the finals of the World Cup. However over the years it has been hijacked by 'special interests', users who have implanted a bunch of events with questionable notability onto that list - establishing their 'consensus' with only 2 or 3 editors. Colipon+(Talk) 21:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was originally for sports, then other stuff got talked on. It should be noted that no one has shown any discussion where there was consensus to add all elections to ITNR. Hot Stop 21:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but it should also be noted that some of the arguments against were very shallow ones of the form "That country is small. Its election doesn't matter." Mine is bigger than yours arguments never impress me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recollection is correct; the page originated as Wikipedia:Sports on ITN. —David Levy 23:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If items have been inserted without consensus, let's address that issue. There's no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. —David Levy 23:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion over at the Village Pump about reforming ITN altogether - and I think since we've identified so many potential improvements with the current state of ITN, we should give it some serious thought. Perhaps we should take the discussion there instead? Colipon+(Talk) 01:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have posted an extremely embryonic idea of one possible direction of travel for the Main Page, which is somewhat related to ITN, here. I cannot stress in strong enough terms that it is not a proposal at this point, merely an unpolished idea, but I nonetheless invite all opinions. Regards, —WFC— 15:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have an ITN bot like User:DYKBot that updates the page (when prompted, or some other method) and gives credit (which is limied to a handful of admins, only Thaddeus that i know of), etc. Saves tons of workLihaas (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? There's bigger issues at ITN than whether or not someone who prematurely nominates every minor elections gets props on his talk page. Hot Stop 14:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with HotStop. I am not sure if there's enough evidence to suggest it, Lihaas, but it does sometimes appear that you're trying to achieve some kind of 'point scoring' with the number of "X wins the Z election" nominations linked to incomplete articles doktorb _words^deeds 16:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As ITN currently is, the nominator of an article almost always does no work toward getting an item up on ITN. Likewise, they deserve no award or recognition or badge of honor. Recognition for updates is a different story, but that's usually a lot more difficult to pinpoint than for DYK pieces. The updates on ITN articles are often not very extensive anyway. -- tariqabjotu 18:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Okey lets not get catty (HS statement above) the issue was brought to me attention via 2 recent postings from DY and ITN n my talk page so i though it would vbe easier to have a bot to run things through and update ITN, etc so i brought up here,. Its simple to just say its not worth the hassle or that its a good idea to automate things instead of resporting to non content personality politics and ad hominem attacks.

btw- it did say the bbot can be for other uses too, what was mentioned here was a suggestion but people are more interested in f***ing with each other than opening minds to new ideas!Lihaas (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It has emerged in recent discussions that some items on ITNR, mostly in the categories of sports and elections, have "lost their legitimacy" due to consistent editor opposition. While I fully concede that a number of editors are perfectly comfortable with the current state of ITNR and do not want to see change, it is now clear as day that many other editors do not share this viewpoint. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the current ITNR list represents a going consensus.

This raises a very real procedural question of whether or not editors can continue to invoke ITNR to post articles onto the main page, particularly if the subject article is of dubious notability and explicit opposition is voiced on ITN/C. Of course, in the long run it is in all editors' interests to search for a integrative solution workable to all sides involved. But in the interim period between now and when we reach consensus on a re-designed ITN or ITNR, I would move that we refrain from posting articles from ITNR that receive significant opposition from editors. Colipon+(Talk) 01:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A dispute regarding an item's inclusion at WP:ITN/R should be raised at WT:ITN/R, ideally before the event occurs. However, someone might not realize that something is listed at ITN/R before the ITN/C nomination arises, so if discussion is ongoing at WT:ITN/R, that's a valid consideration. What carries little weight is opposition to an ITN/R item expressed solely at ITN/C by someone unwilling to address the underlying issue. —David Levy 02:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the claim that "many other editors" are uncomfortable with what's in ITNR. Yes, some certainly are, but in the context of all Wikipedia editors, I would need convincing that it's "many". HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What David said. Based on the current non-ITNR items that end up being posted, I think ITNR is about right. That said, I do have lots of experience in feeling frustrated about being unable to change something which in my opinion is so patently wrong, when the solution seems so patently obvious.

The problem is that if users were to follow through with wilfully ignoring ITNR at ITNC – without having first exhausted every possible avenue to deal with ITNR's problems – this would be a case of disrupting Wikipedia with the sole aim of proving a point. The intention of following that course of action would be to adversely affect ITNR through sabotage, in a way that either wasn't tried or could not be achieved through discussion. While it probably would succeed in stopping two or three nominations in quick succession, I suspect it would do the cause more harm than good in the medium term. —WFC— 07:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Another idea would be to NOT have ITNR as mandatory postings subject to article aulity but have all topics as "minoryt" ones with lower levels of consensus. Though this is all subjective Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

But these aren't minority topics. There's no valid reason to require lower levels of consensus. The principle is that a normal level of consensus is known to exist. —David Levy 11:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree compltely, i was just offering a suggestion for a possible accomodation. We could merge minority/ITNR under whatever name/title we want to give it. So instead of automatic, well just go with lower' consensus Lihaas (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to apply the "lower level of consensus" concept to the events listed at ITN/R (in general). If an event's inclusion lacks the normal level of consensus (on a recurring basis), it should be removed from the list. Combining the page with a separate/inapplicable concept doesn't make sense. —David Levy 21:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

But thats exactly it. We ake out ITNR/minoirty topic, call it whathaveyou and THEN have the lower than normal consensus.Lihaas (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We appear to be going in circles. Sorry. —David Levy 23:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with 'waiting for recurring opposition' to an existing ITNR event is that even at the most frequent pace, they appear once every year. Something like Hurling (sorry to keep singling it out, no offense to fans of the sport) would reasonably get some opposition every year, but we would have to wait at least 3-4 years before we establish this 'recurring pattern'. For elections, we'd have to wait 3-4 election cycles... some 15 years! In light of that, the only solution, absent any changes to ITNR, is to invoke WP:IAR when a patently non-notable event is nominated, even if it is under ITNR, and have it rejected on that basis. The regular ITN updaters, i.e. BorgQueen, Tariq, etc., will need to be informed of this so as to not continue existing practice. Colipon+(Talk) 19:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

IAR is for when those who wrote policies, guidelines or essays could not have foreseen that those "rules" might stand in the way of improving Wikipedia. I don't see how anyone could argue it in this instance, where very specific, self-explanatory parts of ITNR are causing a problem. The solution is surely to get consensus to remove those extremely specific things. —WFC— 20:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't. At what level do we establish that "consensus has changed." Let's say we wanted to remove hurling and netball from ITNR, and 70% of users supported, but 30% opposed. That would still be retention of the status quo per "no consensus". For elections, removing all from ITNR would probably be quite unpopular (but so is retaining all), so there are serious procedural hurdles to that change. Colipon+(Talk) 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not how WP:CONSENSUS works, Colipon. The way establish whether, say, hurling removed from ITNR is to make a proposal that it should be, and then await the outcome. I don't think editors need to waste much time fretting over the issue until it has been raised on the relevant talkpage. Formerip (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the Wikipedia consensus process's biggest critics, yet I was part of the last team of people to significantly change the Main Page. So I understand both sides of this, and I assure you that as difficult and backwards as getting consensus can sometimes be, it is almost always possible (ironically, I'm currently involved in an RfC where it is literally impossible, but that's another matter). IAR would only be justified in this case if you could demonstrate that no item could possibly be removed from ITNR. —WFC— 20:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well with several months worth of discussion and no conclusion, I am pretty close to the stage of demonstrating that a solution is impossible wrt ITNR/elections... but I am still willing to try. Right now perhaps we could all better use our energy to significantly re-designing ITN in general, since the issues seem to spill over into multiple arenas, including sports, deaths, and elections.

Still, I feel like my concern is misunderstood - I am not saying that consensus is impossible on this issue, but if reaching this consensus will take an extremely lengthy period of time, say, two years, what do we do in the intervening time when it is clear the status quo has lost favour? Where does the legitimacy of the current ITNR list stand? Colipon+(Talk) 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear that the status quo has lost favour. It's not even clear what you are referring to when you say "status quo".

And where do you get "say two years" from? Formerip (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's very much a case, imo, of a very small group of users not getting their way with certain things (like all elections being posted) and thus wanting to shoehorn their ideas into proposals that would significantly alter the format of ITN. Really it's akin to a coup d'état, with a minority of unhappy people trying to introduce massive upheaval. A smarter method might be, as I've raised at WT:ITNR, to downgrade ITNR from 'guideline' status to something we merely refer to, rather than treat as some God-like list of items set in stone for posting. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a mischaracterization, really. There I am seeking solutions to some integrated problems, which includes, but is not limited to, the overposting of elections, recurring sports events, and the dearth of minority topics, plus other systemic issues that I have identified by reading the archives of the ITNR and ITN discussions. I cannot see why anyone would want to insinuate that this is anything but good faith. I will also mention that user WTC and myself disagreed over quite a few aspects of ITN but we are now able to find some common ground; there is certainly no "sinister agenda" or "coup attempt", and I respectfully ask the above user to withdraw those accusations. Colipon+(Talk) 14:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, the current events for May 13 i.e. Portal:Current events/2012 May 13 will not display in WP:ITN/C. Could someone fix this? Simply south...... coming and going for just 6 years 22:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't work it out either. Odd. Modest Genius ^talk 23:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed; it was a problem with the portal page itself. Portal:Current events/2012 May 13 was missing a "|}". Spencer^T♦C 23:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

After an exasperating discussion over at the monthlong discussion on elections and following the patterns of editor behavior at ITN, I believe there are some serious systemic issues with this prominent part of the Wikipedia home page that deserve in-depth discussion and a concerted, long-term effort at fixing the problems. The major problems I identify are:

1. An undue emphasis on recurring events such as government changes (elections) and sports events (and records), many of which are unremarkable, and whose threshold for notability are much lower than other ITN/C stories.
2. An undue emphasis on deaths - with criteria that are loosely applied or shoddily enforced, resulting in the posting of deaths for individuals whose notability is high but not high enough to deserve an entire blurb on par with other ITN/C stories.
3. A continuing shortage of ITN/C nominations for minority categories, despite efforts to curb this (I would argue it has gotten worse since instituting "minority topic lower consensus threshold" rules - when was the last time we saw an article about science posted?).
4. Many articles which are well-written, encyclopedic, and will spark wide reader interest are neglected and shot down at ITN/C, mostly due to accusations of bias and the limitation of 4-5 stories at one given time.
5. A preference for superlatives - in particular new sporting records, financial records, etc.

Overall I feel like ITN is the least objective segment of the main page and is often the product of "mob mentality" or the work of a few dedicated editors with pet subjects. As a result it often gives the impression of being the most 'amateur' part of the main page, with half-baked blurbs, stories of questionable importance, and dearth of articles that spark reader interest.

I wanted to get the ball rolling, and there are other problems, but this is a start and hopefully we will be able to find a solution workable to us all. I believe one of the most obvious ways to address the problem is to have a 'stickies' section on the main page - where current events of wide interests can be linked (article only) without discussions over blurbs or a tedious nomination process. It would result in more timely postings, less work, and less controversy. The combined blurb-stickies approach is visible at the German Wikipedia and would look similar to what had been proposed at the elections ticker. Colipon+(Talk) 15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• As of May 8, 2012, the twelve consecutive stories posted on ITN prior to that date are elections, sporting events, or deaths. During this intermittent time around ten stories were rejected at ITN/C. None of those stories belonged to these three "master categories". Colipon+(Talk) 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure having a stickies section would solve the problem. We'd just get caught up on what items got to go there or not. And FYI, we did post The Scream on May 2. Hot Stop 19:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Good catch! Though, that still qualifies as a "record", which seems to be a recurring theme on ITN - somehow "records" have a free pass - whether it involves Cricket centuries (Sachin), European football season scoring (Messi), or sport team purchases (LA Angels), or big auctions (The Scream)! Anyhow, the stickies method is just one suggestion. Colipon+(Talk) 19:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• On a related note, does anyone feel ITNC has been less busy than it usually is? I feel few things that aren't ITNR even get nominated. And fewer people have commented. Hot Stop 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the archives also havent been updated in a long time... But just in general, it's easier to criticize than it is to make a constructive case - so almost every story that is not ITNR/a record/death gets shut down for a perceived flaw from a small number of editors. Colipon+(Talk) 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation, deliberate or otherwise, is rife here. The Sachin Tendulkar cricket story was NOT about a record. It was a huge milestone of the kind that cricket has highlighted for over 200 (yes!) years. And it really was unique. (That means it has only happened once in the history of the world, despite frequent misuse of that word.) Records obviously aren't unique and must be tested much more thoroughly. It's obviously election season in Europe, and there's a lot of countries in Europe, so there will be a lot of election stories at present. That doesn't make any single one of them any more or less notable than it would be if it wasn't election season in Europe. So it's perfectly reasonable to have a lot of election stories right now. It's NOT a sign of systemic bias.

But we need need clearer, less arguable criteria for deaths, amateur(?) American college sports, and soccer.

And individuals do need to consider their own POV when nominating and supporting. I chose to NOT post in the Maurice Sendak thread BECAUSE I think he was one of the best writers around. I KNEW I was biased. Most sports stories are nominated by obsessed fans with a very poor global perspective. That never helps. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There's some truth in these concerns, though I would rather ITN was vigilant and viable than a 'rolling ticker' of headlines. ITN is not Google News, or the PA, or BBC World. If we're agreeing on anything, it's that ITN is one way in which people can move from the front door into the building of Wikipedia without clicking on 'search'. If there's a reason for that not happening, we have a problem. Nobody has (or will?) calculate how page viewing stats have changed before, during and after ITN nomination, so there's no scientific evidence yet that ITN is ineffective.

I 'joined' ITN/C around the time of the Occupy protests. I was gratified to see enough editors agreeing with me that front page prominence for those events would have been grossly exaggerating their value and grossly inflating their worth. One editor was so incensed by my stance that he flew off the handle and was subsequently blocked for incivility. Since then I have been a regular editor over there and feel that my stance has been largely constructive and useful. I agree that there's a current 'lull' in contributions, though this isn't unique across Wikipedia. I agree that there's been something of a roll-call of included nominations (sport, death, election, sport, death, election, sport, death, election). However news isn't something we can predict or quantify, nor is ITN able to bend itself around the often unpredictable developments of world events. I think there's only so much we can do to push minority topics through, if those topics aren't happening or aren't really that important. There's no point in devaluing the front page just so we can feel good about having a minority topic on the front page.

I will say one thing on the election ticker: Wikipedia is at its worst when a hundred editors pile into a discussion and kill it. There's a lot of merit in the election ticker idea, and I'm concerned that 'death by consensus' has seen it off. Let's revisit that idea, which will go some way to resolve the problems we have experienced recently. doktorb _words^deeds 06:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:election ticker, how do you gather a large enough crowd to determine that there is consensus? How do you prevent "drive-by" opposes? Once we flesh out an idea, how do we prevent it from getting shot down at first instance once it's out of its incubator? Colipon+(Talk) 02:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I was amazed that the election ticker idea got the level of support it did since it is so at odds with the opening premises. The elections discussion started from the assertion that dissatisfaction had been expressed with the posting of minor elections. How does posting more elections alleviate that? It also reserves a certain amount of space for one particular category of item: since space is finite that is by necessity at the expense of everything elese. Nothing I saw in that discussion indicated why elections deserve special treatment in that manner, so why not the same treatment for sports? Deaths? General politics stories? If you begin to go down that road it is difficult to argue against each additional category and all of a sudden you no longer have a general ITN, but a series of tiles that exacerbate the lack of variety, and in all probability will simply be ignored by the majority of main page visitors. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Seemy comment just aove. Its atrocious that the demands for a wider consensus to add the ticker are made yet the discussion that is called is ignored. If people dont want to discuss then they certainly should not be allowed to oppose by ';vote count. It not as if this is imposed, a open ended discussion was created for this reason.

Also ITN is undoubtedly purely subjective and should be corrected or abolished. It can b e replaced by OTD and OTD can then have links to such current eents as deaths/elections calendar/current sports, etc.Lihaas (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't bother to comment on that specifically in the discussion because I don't feel the need to. After the opposition expressed to the idea at ITN/C it appears to be dead in the water. I am not obliged to waste my time on proposals that are not going anywhere. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

For what it's worth, here are the stories posted on ITN between April 10 and May 10.

• Elections: Bahamas, Armenia, Serbia, Greece, France, Hungary, World Bank, South Korea (8)
• Deaths: Sassoon, Sendak, Dick Clark (3)
• Sports: Snooker WC, Kentucky Derby, Messi (record), Dodgers sale (also a record), Grand National (5)
• Disasters (mostly transportation related): Sukhoi plane crash, Assam ferry, Bhoja Air, Sloderdijk train, Utair, Avalanche in Pakistan (natural disaster), Indian ocean earthquake (natural disaster) (7)
• Others: Red Eléctrica de España (politics, business), Conneticut capital punishment (politics/law), Chen Guangcheng (politics/international relations), Kuala Lumpur protests (politics), Egypt-Saudi embassy (politics/international relations), Bahrain grand prix protests (politics/sports), YPF (politics/business), Charles Taylor (politics/law), Afghanistan attacks (politics/terrorism), North Korean rocket (politics/international relations), The Scream (arts, record), Guinea Bissau coup (politics), Mali coup (politics), Joyce Banda (politics), Pal Schmitt resigns (politics).

Please tell me that I am not the only one sensing that there is some gross imbalance of postings on ITN, and it has gotten worse of late. Note that the majority 23/39 (59%) of posts belong to "master categories" - ITN news items that get a pass by invoking ITNR or a justification based on "X number died" or "notable died". Mass deaths due to disasters are generally hard to argue against even if they are of relatively low notability (how can one argue against the tragedy of people dying?).

Of the "non-master-category" postings, i.e., posts that are not related to deaths, elections, sports, or disasters, a staggering 15 out of 16 are related to politics in some way! There is not a single post about science, new infrastructure, or culture. Why are we so obsessed with politics? Perhaps it's a reflection of the editor profiles at ITN. FWIW, I am a big politics junkie myself, but I still find this political skew uncomfortable and a bad reflection of what Wikipedia represents. Colipon+(Talk) 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's really a good time to take the pulse of ITN, because we have just been through a spate of election nominations aimed at promoting the ticker idea. Plus, postings seem to have been quite lax (of the three elections currently in the box, one article has an orange tag and one has a significant lack of sourcing and breaches of WP:USEENGLISH). Formerip (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Theyre not AIMED at the ticker, the election nominations came per the calendar and it happened to have several this week

Though im proud to say that of the non recurring events i nom'd many of them ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that it's ridiculously difficult to get a minority topic posted. My first nomination here was the Google announcement of the successful Project Glass protoype, which news organizations around the world carried as a front-page story, hailing it as a major innovation; the coverage and discussion went on for days. The first response didn't even deign to write "oppose" or give a reason, but just said something to the effect of "Go re-read the rules; this isn't what we do here." Later voters stated that it wouldn't be news until it was in beta testing, or went into limited release, or went into full release--but I suspect that re-nominating it at any of those steps will result in editors just saying "Hey, this was news when it first came out/was in beta-testing/etc.--it's not news that they're now selling it worldwide instead of just in California." I get the feeling that editors here will never report on a new innovation unless it can be announced, beta tested, and released within a 24-hour span; if it hadn't been for my interest in the Mali coup, I don't know if I would have come back after that experience.

A recent science nomination had the same issue when the announced discovery of an entire new kingdom of life was opposed by editors who dismissed it as "speculative" until independently confirmed by other researchers; the problem, of course, being that the years of double-checking to follow would never make international news in the manner of the initial announcement. (This one ended up passing after some debate, but wasn't posted when we couldn't find an expert to update the article in time.)

It's not really clear to me what science and technology articles some editors here would ever support, which is a shame. Posting these types of items to ITN would be a good way to invite editors with a more diverse group of interests (i.e., not just politics and sports) into Wikipedia. Khazar2 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback; I've proposed a comprehensive remedy for these problems here. Your input would be appreciated. Colipon+(Talk) 18:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of bold should be expanded to cover the whole event (subject and verb( whenever possible. For example, in the current version has

"At least 49 people are decapitated—allegedly by the Los Zetas drug cartel."

This might be interpreted as if it were a wikilink to the article for "decapitation". Policy indicates that at least "are decapitated" should be in bold so that it reads

"At least 49 people are decapitated—allegedly by the Los Zetas drug cartel—and found on Mexican Federal Highway 40."

But I would prefer that we extend the policy further so the subject and verb are included, so it would read

"At least 49 people are decapitated—allegedly by the Los Zetas drug cartel—and found on Mexican Federal Highway 40."

This is a minor point, I know, but I would greatly appreciate the increased readability and I'm sure others would too. I can provide further examples if necessary. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is more of a case-by-case choice, but I think that in a situation like this, having "49 people are decapitated" in bright blue text is a bit much. Spencer^T♦C 03:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Over at ITN/R's (only on-line does that look normal) discussion page, the community is invited to discuss removing Hurling, Poker, and/or EuroBasketball from ITN/R

Cheers doktorb _words^deeds 14:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel that often five days is too early to archive a discussion on ITN/C, such as the recent Syrian election case, where the results came a full week after the nom. This might be a special case because it was proposed before the results had come out, but for instance, the Bahrain Grand Prix protests were posted a day after the nom had been archived, yet they were still only third from bottom on ITN. ITN rarely has a full slate of new stories within five days generally, so I request discussion extending the archive period of AnomieBot to at least a week. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. No specific objection, but I think it is important to keep in mind that sometimes the actual problem is that stories are nominated prematurely and/or ought to be copy 'n' paste renominated when there are new developments. I think it would be pretty unusual for a story to need more than five days to get a consensus. Formerip (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Syria example was an example of a story that was just a premature nomination, while the Bahrain one was a story that just needed more than the five days allotted to get a consensus. However, no matter how unusual of an occurrence it is, there is nothing to lose and something to gain by extending it a few days. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that I don't see the harm of extending the timer another 2-3 days. Khazar2 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a good reason not to post premature nominations. An item should be stale after 5 days. Hot Stop 17:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion would make sense if we had some way to block people from posting premature nominations, but I don't know how we could. It seems a shame for something like the Syrian elections or the Bahrain Grand Prix to be barred from the main page because an editor nominates prematurely; no reason to penalize the news for the eagerness of contributors. Khazar2 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It was nine days before results came out. I'm just saying we shouldn't overreact to a one-time thing. Hot Stop 17:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked the operator of the bot a couple weeks back to change the archival time to seven days, but s/he refused to do so because there was no discussion about this. And I refused to start one. A bot (or bot operator) shouldn't have such power to single-handedly control such basic tasks on Wikipedia. As with anywhere on Wikipedia, if discussions are being archived in the middle of meaningful conversation, they are being archived too quickly. Period. Nothing more needs to be said. And we don't need to have to a protracted bureaucratic discussion about this simply because a bot and its operator are in the middle. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this a support vote, a change should be made without any discussion vote, or something completely different? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "vote". It's my response. -- tariqabjotu 23:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Premature nominations should be removed. Aggressively. And by the nomination's own supporters. A subject going up too early will usually garner opposition that it wouldnt have gotten 48 hours later, and often takes even longer to post because people aren't actively looking at the discussions from three days ago. —WFC— 13:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The endless silly debates over what sports and elections and deaths are "worthwhile" seem to me to be missing the point. There will never be agreement over the criteria for "important enough" because everyone has their own, entrenched, and never-to-be-changed opinions on what "important enough" means, and because of that, these debates go around in circles. It all comes down to people arguing what is important to them personally as there is no good universal standard. So, I say, lets scrap any idea of importance. The main page is meant to be a showcase of quality Wikipedia work, so lets make ITN about that. I propose we scrap the current ITN criteria, and replace it with the following criteria:

• Entries on In The News should:
  • Have an existing article on Wikipedia which is either a new article or a substantial expansion of an existing article
    • If it is a new article, the article should be a minimum of 1500 words of prose (not counting hatnotes, tags, infoboxes, references, etc.)
    • If it is an expansion to an existing article, the new information should be a minimum of 500 words of prose.
  • There should be no outstanding issues with the article (orange or red level tags). Articles need not be perfect, but there should be no major concerns.
  • The subject of the article or update should have been covered in national or international news sources within the past day or two at the time of nomination.
  • When judging the suitability for inclusion on ITN, primacy should be given first to the quality of the article/update and secondly to the coverage as can be demonstrated through reliable, well respected national or international news sources. Discussions of "worthiness" and "importance" are of a purely subjective nature, and should not be invoked or given any weight when deciding when to put an item in ITN.

That's it. Scrap ITNR, scrap ITNDC, scrap it all. Is the article good enough to represent Wikipedia on the main page, and is the subject actually being covered by news sources. That's my proposal. --Jayron32 01:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

1. As nominator. --Jayron32 01:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Futile support. Good luck to this proposal. –HTD 01:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
3. I support the principle of judging ITN candidates solely on two broad criteria: a minimum quality requirement, and proof that the subject matter is in the news somewhere. I also support the principle of ditching subjective and often circular arguments about whether a subject is important enough. This isn't fully developed: for one thing, we would need guidance on how to deal with long term issues such as Syria and Greece. For another, something resembling ITNR would have to remain for sports, although the emphasis should shift away from whether hurling is an important enough sport for its flagship event to be allowed a mention, and towards ensuring that the likes of 2011–12 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team do not dominate ITNC. But the principle of this proposal are right. —WFC— 11:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support The roundabout rigmarole of nominating and opposing and what-not just isn't functioning anymore. doktorb _words^deeds 20:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Because I've said the same thing before. -- tariqabjotu 04:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1. You're kidding right? "The subject of the article or update should have been covered in national or international news sources within the past day or two at the time of nomination." This essentially means someone could nominate anything that was covered in a newspaper or two in the last couple of days and no one could object on significance! ITN would become a free for all like DYK! Do we really want that? Do we want to be posting whatever obscure news people want? This seems to go against some of the central purposes of ITN as outlined at WP:ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   What we don't want is the current situation, which is that people judge worthiness based solely on their own personal opinion, and not on objective criteria. So, we get a situation where sports like Snooker or Hurling get on the page, while the The second most watched sporting event in the most populous English speaking country get regularly shot down. Criteria need to be based on anything except people's personal, singular opinions over what they individually think is worthwhile. It should be based on evidence and quality and nothing else. I am not objecting to Snooker or Hurling appearing in ITN, I am objecting to the method by which we decide that Snooker and Hurling are events that appear, while others get left off, and there is no objective criteria to decide between the two. It isn't the specific things we choose, it is the wholly illogical and unsupportable way we have decided what importance means. --Jayron32 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   If you want things to be "based on evidence" then surely you should not be misleading as to the populations of countries where English is a (de jure or de facto) official language. The most populous of those by a very long way is India. FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   English_language#Countries_in_order_of_total_speaker would beg to differ. --Jayron32 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   Nope. It is addressing a different point from the one I was making. You referred to the "most populous English speaking country". The only sensible meaning of an "English speaking country" is one where it is an official or a normal language, and the "most populous country" where English meets that criterion is clearly India.

   I am, as I hope you realise, being a bit pedantic but in order to make a point. The fact that the US is the largest country where English is the normal language is not really that significant. There are far more English speakers outside the US than inside it.

   As an aside, those figures are for 2000/2001. The way that the Indian population is booming (and becoming more educated and hence English speaking) I would not be surprised if India moved above the US in that table in the near future. FerdinandFrog (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   As a response to Jayron32's reply to me, I do think that we shouldn't settle for the current situation, where users squabble over subjective criteria, but saying that an event cannot be objected to as long as it has the proper update and there are multiple news sources reporting it is absurd. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose any attempt to remove the "subjective criteria", they're the only thing (imo) stopping ITN from being an utter free-for-all. You could find someone to write a 500 word update on anything, no matter how insignificant, if there are enough sources. Would someone winning Big Brother or The Amazing Race really be for ITN? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   You mean, is the results of an event that millions of our readers want to know about important enough to provide them information on? --Jayron32 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose the article size/update requirements alone are too difficult. Hot Stop 06:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
4. ITN is flawed, but scrapping it isn't the solution. Secret ^account 20:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
5. I have to reluctantly oppose. As frustrating as the subjective arguments can be - and as much as I'd like a faster turnover at ITN, getting more major articles the front-page attention to be improved - if we make "amount of coverage" the only criterion besides quality of update, it opens the door too wide. I'd be reluctant to see ITN be taken over by topics like American Idol winners, political gaffes, murder-of-the-month, celebrity marriages, weekend box office figures, and other topics that can dominate the American news cycle but are of questionable encyclopedic significance. A new president of Botswana or the discovery of a new subatomic particle, say, would have less coverage but are still of more encyclopedic significance than Balloon Boy, Natalee Holloway, or the season-ending cliffhanger of The Simpsons; I'd rather we improve the former of these than the latter, which means some independent judgement to encyclopedic "worthiness" will continue to be necessary. Khazar2 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm going to add a neutral section, which, for me, means "conflicted". While I think that something definitely needs to be done (btw, I fully support the article update criteria listed above, but 1,500 words strikes me as rather high), what about something like Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2011#Bulbophyllum nocturnum (assuming it meets the above criteria)? Personally, I think an article like this would be better fitted for DYK, as expressed in the nomination comments. I think that it's almost impossible to fully separate ideas of "importance" from items. Spencer^T♦C 02:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
   • I pity science articles, because they almost never seem to make it. I don't know if this is because ITN'ers are just obsessed with politics and sports, or because our dogmatic requirement for concise blurb-writing implicitly demands a finite 'end' or milestone - stating X number of people died, someone got elected, Y team won a tournament. Many science articles have no finite timelines, there are no new milestones, developments may be too nuanced for a simple blurb, but still garner widespread interest, yet do not make it onto ITN. Colipon+(Talk) 02:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   • Y won a tournament? How could X possibly lose! Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
     • X always loses when s/he's on the cusp of winning. At the final result, "X" always gets to be replaced by something else. –HTD 12:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

While I may not agree with this proposal in specific, I really appreciate User Jayron's efforts to bring forth a solution that seeks to comprehensively address a deeply flawed system. To me, it is clear that ITN is the most flawed and least professional part of the Main Page as it stands. For several reasons:

1. Lack of balance: heavy skew towards sports, elections, and deaths.
2. Lack of objective criteria to assess notability of topics.
3. Lack of peer review process and checks and balances on article quality as seen at FA and DYK.

What ITN needs is not only a fair, simple, and timely review process that maximizes objectivity and minimizes subjective debates over an event's importance. User WTC and I are discussing a tentative proposal for a format overhaul of ITN and surrounding changes about the evaluation process of ITN items, and we are always open to new ideas, or refining existing ones. I believe it is best that we engage this topic seriously, donate our creative energies, and work towards the spirit of consensus, before throwing out support and oppose votes. Colipon+(Talk) 02:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I also get frustrated with the endless discussion of "worthiness", which often boil down to "I don't like news about sports/science/technology/architecture/entertainment/the environment/business as much as I like elections". But I don't know that opening the door that wide ("any national or international news") is a solution, either. Perhaps a solution would be to tweak the current criteria to include "breadth and depth of coverage" as a criterion. While I wouldn't want to see this become the primary criteria, minority topics generally seem to be killed by arguing that editors independently don't find them "significant" enough, even when it's clear by number of articles that journalists covering the field do find it significant (an argument which is then dismissed by calling the amount of coverage irrelevant). Khazar2 (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• To add to my comments above, ITNR's existence is not the problem. The issue is that because it is so hard to get consensus for a non-ITNR event, ITNR ends up providing an unacceptably high proportion of postings. The reason we're discussing removing the very highest level of hurling and poker from ITNR is because their non-sporting equivalents wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting through ITNC. I would therefore submit that the problem is with articles getting through ITNC, rather than with the ITNR list.

  If ITNR were retained, but we were to otherwise go along with this proposal, I envisage that ITNR should do more or less the opposite of what it does now. It should list the topics for which we do want to retain a subjective importance criterion (sports, elections and possibly deaths). For all other topics, quality and proof that it is in the news in some form should be the only real considerations. That would resolve the concerns above about pop culture utterly dominating ITN, and at the same time remove the problems that "traditional" encyclopaedic topics face at ITNC. —WFC— 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: If we'd, say, totally ditch ITNR or won't make it automatic, what would be left to post, considering it's quite hard to have a successful nomination unless it's ITNR-related. –HTD 12:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that we ban all discussions on subjective importance for most topics – if the article and update are good enough, we post, period. The exception would be topics covered by ITNR. If (for instance) a sporting event is not on ITNR, it would require case-by-case consensus to post (exactly as we currently do). That would ensure that we're easy-come-easy-go in the main, while at the same time ensuring that the new system does not result in sporting overload. —WFC— 13:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah OK. Wait, I think this was the wrong section but I remembered a discussion like this. There's way too many I dunno where to post that question lol. –HTD 13:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WFC highlights a very serious problem with ITN, which is that editors always seem to pick apart ITNC nominations for any number of totally subjective reasons. Therefore, in comparison to what is posted normally from ITNC, a lot of ITNR events would seem unimportant. So, he tells us, the solution is to post more ITNC items, not remove ITNR items, to find this balance. I like this approach personally, but how do we write a set of guidelines to encourage its application? How do we minimize subjective discussions over an event's importance? Colipon+(Talk) 14:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"How do we minimize subjective discussions over an event's importance?" By changing our default option. By default, we always discuss a subject's importance, unless it's on ITNR. Instead, we should never discuss a subject's importance, except where the new guideline suggests that it is okay to do so. I believe it would be difficult, but possible, to create a workable guideline along those lines, but I admit it's difficult to assert that without drafting one. —WFC— 14:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Two comments. Firstly I would suggest the proposed thresholds are far too high. The example that comes mind for me is DuPont v. Kolon Industries simply because I created that one from scratch to ITN posting more or less by myself so I know precisely what went into it. It's worth looking at to get an inkling of what those thresholds mean on the screen. The article isn't going to win FA status or anything like that soon but it presents the subject in reasonable context, is well sourced, and we've got a solid block of prose there. I'd say it's probably better developed than 90% of Wikipedia articles and it certainly had a fat update by ITN standards simply because it was a fresh article. ISTR that took three or four hours to kick into shape - collecting sources, arranging events in a logical order and so on: there's a lot more involved than knocking out some copy. It's around 500 words.

In other words that article in it's entirety would only qualify as a minimum update to an existing article. A fresh article like that one would need to be three times longer, or perhaps ten hours work, assuming there was even enough material to stretch that far without schoolboy-style padding. Setting the bar so high does not encourage fresh content creation. I'm not one for collecting trinkets personally, but the motivation for putting that work in was to get it ITN posted - it's the sort of non-IT business story we don't feature enough of. If we say "right, a new article requires someone to put in more than a working day" that does not encourage that kind of content creation.

My second point is that dropping the notability requirement would in my view be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When special interest publications are taken into consideration I'm sure you could find a news element for any story - "Oh, this Z-list celebrity was mentioned in passing in this week's OK!" or "PTFE tape was in this month's Plumbing Digest". It risks devolving into a clone of DYK with no real reason for an independent existence. It also ignores half or ITN's stated reason for being - it isn't just about highlighting fresh content, but making follow-on coverage available to our readership to supplement what they may have seen in the mainstream news media. An anything goes policy loses that. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

I really think we need to abolish the red banner. Who cares if we went 3 days without an update? There isn't an Arab uprising, giant typhoon, once-in-a-millenium space event or other issue of importance every day. Most of the time it's sports trivia, celebrity gossip and political horse trading. One of those stories gets nom'd, the discussion goes sour, and everyone gets all "ITN is dying". Seriously, lets drop the sense of urgency, please. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator abolishing the red banner and the requirement of a daily update --98.203.99.251 (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose it's useful to have it on top of the page. Do you think shit items get posted because of the timer? I don't. Hot Stop 02:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the timer useful, and removing it won't cause what the OP appears to consider "unworthy" topics from being covered by ITN. --Jayron32 03:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW this has nothing to do with preventing "unworthy topics", but removing the sense of urgency brought on by the timer. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The ITN timer always has struck me as pointless (and potentially harmful). It was copied from DYK, which used one at the time (before switching to automated updates). It made sense at DYK, which operates on fixed schedule. ITN, conversely, is updated when a suitable item is ready to be posted. This might occur three times in a day or once in three days. No arbitrary countdown can change that. It merely leads to comments such as "Borderline importance and not much of an article update yet, but the timer is red, so let's put it up." It probably also discourages some administrators from evaluating potential additions when the timer is grey.
  We should strive to post items as soon as they're ready (and not before), regardless of when the last ITN update occurred. The timer is an artificial construct whose only usefulness is self-perpetuating. (People rely on the timer because it exists.) —David Levy 04:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Mildly support. We could always just switch to a generic timer that states when the last update was made. That would remove the implied WP:DEADLINE. Nightw 05:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a generic timer. It's useful to see exactly when the last update occurred, but nothing magical happens after 12 or 24 hours that requires any additional notification. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it useful to see exactly when the last update occurred? (This is a sincere question, not an attempt to refute the statement.) In what way should this knowledge affect our behavior? —David Levy 06:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As a point of reference, I suppose. I don't like the idea of the template turning red and demanding an update every 24 hours; I don't mind the idea of the template saying, "It has been x hours (or days) since the last update" and leaving the significance of that information up to the individual editor. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand what purpose this information can serve, apart from evoking the same sense of urgency (or lack thereof) as the current coloration. —David Levy 11:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the usefulness of a generic timer is certainly debatable, but it would cause considerably less harm than the current "alarm clock" setup. For the record, I generally support the idea of no timer at all, but I would not be opposed to a generic timer of some sort. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Yes, yes, yes. I find the timer utterly without point, merit or use. It can be used to sway votes and arguments, and yet its role has never been fully explained or defined. I have seen people say "Support because the timer is red". That doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. If the timer is red, as has been explained above, it's because nobody has died, an earthquake hasn't gone off or a plane hasn't crashed. There's no reason to be 'tied' to an arbitrary deadline, ticker, or clock. News is liquid, time-pieces are not. And I know we'd rather carry out ITN with good intent than knee-jerk behaviour. Free ourselves from the ticker and make ITN that little bit less arduous. doktorb _words^deeds 06:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• People will still point out that it's been x amount of time until the last update... –HTD 13:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But the timer encourages this by implying that it's officially been deemed a valid rationale for determining whether an item should be posted. (Why else would the timer exist?) —David Levy 16:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but it still won't stop people by saying that it had been days since the last update. It really depends on the posting admin if s/he would listen to that reasoning. Instead of this, there should be a rule that any admin who'd consider that would be dealt with. –HTD 22:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, users always will complain about dry spells. But if the timer were eliminated, we could politely inform them that this isn't a valid posting rationale without appearing to contradict an official notice to the contrary. —David Levy 22:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we should be dissuading people from making these types of comments. "It's a bad update, but the timer is red" is inadmissible, and has always been so; for that reason, you don't see it often. But if someone decides that they're going to lower their standard of importance, something that is extremely subjective already, because they want to see a new story up, I see nothing wrong with that. -- tariqabjotu 23:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Items should be judged on their own merits, not on how long it's been since the section's last update. Otherwise, the real problem isn't being solved; either sufficiently "important" items are being rejected or insufficiently "important" items are being accepted. This is far from inconsequential, due to the likelihood of an item's rejection/acceptance being regarded by many as a "precedent" and allegations of bias arising if a similar item is treated differently. —David Levy 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support If ITN isn't a strict news service, then strict schedules are irrelevant. If it is a strict news service, it needs wholesale change. Either way, this ain't it. --Dweller (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Removes the urgency to post a new story. Mtking ^(edits) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose While I think the current color changes set an unreasonably high benchmark, staleness is a persistent problem with ITN. I thought that, more so than any other issue, was the driving force being the something-wrong-with-ITN discussions. The solution to us being unable to keep up is not to suddenly decide stagnancy is fine, but to actually try and achieve our goal, encouraging more effort be made toward improving articles to reflect current events (where appropriate, obviously) rather than wasting time arguing over the relative importance of events. As I suggested in one of the many recent reform discussions, I think our importance criterion should be deemphasized in favor of quality updates. At least if we're going to have items up for days on end, we should have well-updated articles. And there are many well-updated articles that don't make it to ITN because they're "tabloid fodder" or "of regional interest", while mediocre articles make it because we just post those types of events. I'm thinking specifically of the election articles posted recently, which had very little prose (seriously, what exactly was updated in Serbian parliamentary election, 2012?), but made it up because we must post every election that happens to demonstrate our commitment to democracy. Taking out the timer, simply put, is a step in the wrong direction, toward codifying ITN's shortcomings. -- tariqabjotu 22:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you wrote above, but it actually is an excellent case for eliminating the timer.

Indeed, let's put more focus on quality updates and less on "importance". The timer doesn't help us to accomplish this; it encourages editors to retain the same questionable standards and temporarily set them aside when the situation seems desperate (instead of addressing the underlying problem by formulating better criteria and applying them consistently).

No one asserts that "stagnancy is fine". We assert that a timer isn't a good solution. —David Levy 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The effect of the timer is that, after a period of stagnancy, we are more liberal in our interpretation of the ITN criteria. No more. I understand and sympathise with the view that the box on the top right of the Main Page should not be considered "news". But for as long as it is called something containing the word "news", that sense of urgency is both justified and necessary.

  All of the editors I'm familiar with who have supported this are clued up people. Surely you can see that the casual reader would expect us to keep a section called "in the news" ticking along at all times? And surely you can see that it reflects badly on the Main Page as a whole when this expectation is not fulfilled? —WFC— 00:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I sympathize, but to keep it "ticking along at all times" we would have to drop what is traditionally considered "ITN worthy". Look at the Google world news top 10 for example: Obama and gays, russian plane in Indo (which is on ITN), a rabble of Syria updates and "Weather with prince Charles". Nominate "Prince Charles reads weather report on BBC" and see how far it goes. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama's statement on gay marriage in the U.S. is being shot down at ITN/C, but, while I don't think it has much consequence, if there can be a healthy update that could stand the test of time (and I think there may be articles where it's appropriate and not just recentism), it should be appropriate for ITN. However, the Prince Charles weather report couldn't fine a place in any Wikipedia article, as far as I can tell, without being quickly removed as just pure recentism. So, the update criterion on its own should be enough to weed that out. -- tariqabjotu 01:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess my main point is that this is the wrong first step. If we were to rebrand In The News (ITN) as Recent Events (RE), and follow that up by tightening the criteria accordingly, removing the timer would be a logical progression from there. Removing the timer now does not make sense, with a process which is branded with the word "news", and which in practise is pitched slightly closer to a global news site than to a major events portal. —WFC— 01:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The effect of the timer is that, after a period of stagnancy, we are more liberal in our interpretation of the ITN criteria.

In other words, we lower our standards for the sake of getting something posted.

I understand and sympathise with the view that the box on the top right of the Main Page should not be considered "news". But for as long as it is called something containing the word "news", that sense of urgency is both justified and necessary.

I think that we should remove the word "news" from the name, but I also think that we should aspire to update the section more frequently (irrespective of what it's called). As discussed above, we can do so by formulating better criteria and applying them consistently. This is a much better approach than retaining the problematic criteria and relaxing them when the situation becomes desperate (i.e. when the timer turns red). The timer is masking the underlying problem and discouraging the community from fixing it.

Surely you can see that the casual reader would expect us to keep a section called "in the news" ticking along at all times? And surely you can see that it reflects badly on the Main Page as a whole when this expectation is not fulfilled?

Even if the section had a different name, stagnancy would be bad. The problem is real, but the timer isn't a real solution. —David Levy 04:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On the first point I don't accept your conclusion. I would say that during quieter periods we are more open to less traditional fields. Taking Vidal Sassoon as an example, there is very little question that he was better known within and outside his field than Maurice Sendak, and of more international relevance than Dick Clark. But if we were in the middle of a series of terrorist attacks on Western countries, Sassoon probably wouldn't have been posted. Someone (possibly yourself) may well use what I have just said as evidence of your conclusion, but I simply reject the notion that to do what I describe is to lower our standards. It is simply a rational editorial process that the gravity of what we post varies according to the gravity of what is going on in the world.

My current attitude at ITN/C is that whether I treat ITN as news or not, others will. Therefore my aim is to help ensure that the news we post is balanced and of global interest. Where I do think we agree is that to shift away from "news" would be good. But ITN is currently a mixture of news and recent major events, and I don't believe there is consensus to shift from this position. Thus, unless I'm wrong, I believe to remove the timer would be to worsen the process. Removing the timer under certain circumstances would be a good thing, but it needs to be part of the broader package.

On stagnancy, I actually don't think there is a problem with updating less often, provided we redefine what the section is about. If the reader's expectation is that we focus on coverage of major events, a longer cycle would not be harmful. I think there is an expectation of a rapid turnover because we currently post sporting achievements, deaths of highly notable people, major awards ceremonies etc. —WFC— 11:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On the first point I don't accept your conclusion.

When I see users write things along the lines of "Support. Not the best article update, but the timer is red." or "Support. Marginal impact, but the timer is red.", what conclusion should I draw?

As noted in my response to Tariqabjotu|, a red timer also leads us to post items that should be be posted and otherwise wouldn't be. Some regard this as a solution, while I regard it as a symptom of a problem.

The problem, which Tariqabjotu described, is that we place too much emphasis on "importance" and not enough on the quality of the articles' updates. As a result, articles with excellent updates are rejected on the basis that the relevant events aren't sufficiently important, while "important" items linking to articles with tiny updates are posted. In other words, we're treating ITN too much like a news ticker. (And yes, I agree that the "In the news" name leads many to expect as much.)

It's because of this that stagnancy sometimes arises. (We can't determine when "important" events occur, so we're bound to hit some dry spells.) But instead of addressing the underlying problem (our reliance upon "important" news and rejection of all else), we fall back on a timer to tell us when to throw up our arms and fill the gap with something. We're treating a symptom (by posting an item that otherwise would be rejected) instead of fixing the underlying problem — the lopsided standards that cause the stagnancy in the first place, in part by excluding items that probably should be posted on a regular basis (not merely when the section grinds to a halt and we become desperate to get it moving again).

I would say that during quieter periods we are more open to less traditional fields. Taking Vidal Sassoon as an example, there is very little question that he was better known within and outside his field than Maurice Sendak, and of more international relevance than Dick Clark. But if we were in the middle of a series of terrorist attacks on Western countries, Sassoon probably wouldn't have been posted.

And that's a good example of the problem.

Someone (possibly yourself) may well use what I have just said as evidence of your conclusion, but I simply reject the notion that to do what I describe is to lower our standards.

So do I. I cite it as evidence that our normal standards of "importance" are too strict and should be adjusted (not periodically set aside out of desperation). Many equally appropriate items were rejected because the timer happened to be grey, which is every bit as bad as letting through relatively poor items when the timer is red.

Our current practice is to apply a particular set of criteria when the section has been updated recently. And when these flawed criteria cause the section to become stagnant, we abandon them and post whatever we can find (including items that should be posted, but otherwise would be rejected). This is a broken process, and the timer only serves to fuel it and encourage its retention.

It is simply a rational editorial process that the gravity of what we post varies according to the gravity of what is going on in the world.

Even under grey-timer conditions, ITN experiences the slowest turnover of any dynamic section of the main page. TFA, OTD and TFP experience 100% turnover on a daily basis, while DYK currently does so every eight hours. So there's absolutely no reason why we can't adopt a consistent set of criteria that keeps the section fresh without compromise.

Where I do think we agree is that to shift away from "news" would be good. But ITN is currently a mixture of news and recent major events, and I don't believe there is consensus to shift from this position.

I don't understand what distinction you're drawing between "news" and "recent major events". —David Levy 17:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I roughly define a "major recent event" as something which justifies a stand-alone article under our existing policies and guidelines, with the caveat that the event is either a one-off (plane crashes, devastating earthquakes, nuclear tests, deaths so significant that they clearly merit full-blown articles etc), or at the very least typically occurs less often than once a year (elections, Olympic Games, category 5 hurricanes etc). As I say, that's a rough definition – I readily concede that there are loopholes and tough cases based on that wording, but I think it communicates my thinking well enough for the purposes of this discussion.

I agree with much of what you say about ITN being in some form of disrepair (I hesitate to use the precise language you do, given the lack of progress at the horrible broken process in the last 14 months). Any process which relies on judging the consensus of highly subjective and polarising things such as importance, encyclopaedic value, general interest etc is doomed to inconsistency and delay. In most cases that's not an issue; most decisions can wait a few days and will probably be better decisions as a result, but obviously in a news-ish section we should be looking to make our minds up as quickly as possible.

I respect much of what you say: on many issues we're not that far apart. But on the issue we're discussing I can only reiterate my position, in the hope you will realise that on this point you are unlikely to either convince me or neuter my argument. Getting rid of the timer only makes sense if we are solving the actual problem: clearly defining what ITN actually is. You say the banner is a symptom of the problem. I say it is a useful and regular reminder that we have failed to solve the problem. —WFC— 19:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by "recent major events" vs. "news". I personally believe that ITN should include both, but that's beside the point.

Likewise, I respect what you (and other opponents of the timer's removal) have written and agree with much of it. In a way, that makes our disagreement all the more frustrating, as I know that we share essentially the same goals and merely differ on how to best reach them.

You've opined that "getting rid of the timer only makes sense if we are solving the actual problem". In my view, the timer hinders such efforts.

When the timer is grey, this is interpreted as a formal announcement that everything is fine ("no problem to solve"). When the timer is red, we seek to post something to make it turn grey ("problem solved"). At no point is the actual problem addressed, but the timer appears to indicate otherwise. It incorrectly informs editors that the officially sanctioned course of action is to allow the section to stagnate until the timer turns red, at which point posting whatever item we can makes everything okay.

The banner is a "regular reminder that we have failed to solve the problem", but it actually discourages the community from doing so (by encouraging editors to instead focus on the timer's color at a given moment as the sole indicator of ITN's health). —David Levy 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, although I think the times at which it change colour should change (yellow at 24 hours, red at 36). I think the timer gives anyone looking at ITN/C an immediate impression of 'how well we're doing'. Over a period of weeks the relative proportions of when it is white/yellow/red are informative of how stagnant or not the template has been. We certainly shouldn't be adding items which aren't ready or suitable just because the timer is red. But it's nice to have some graphical indication of when there is or isn't a problem. Modest Genius ^talk 10:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You've just described exactly the manner in which the timer misleads users (who perceive it as "an indication of when there is or isn't a problem").

The "problem" is ongoing. It stems from our flawed inclusion criteria. The red timer is merely a symptom of the problem, which we hastily treat instead of addressing the problem itself.

That a grey timer is interpreted as an indication that everything is fine might be the most harmful element of all.

We could easily compile comparable statistics without displaying a giant  ALL IS WELL  /  REMAIN CALM  /  TIME TO PANIC  banner.

Are we even compiling such statistics now? —David Levy 17:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I do think a case can and has been made for either setting longer times for the colours, or removing them from the template (so that it is purely informational, rather than a warning). Putting aside disagreements on the template's very existence, the objection to the red in particular seems to be that intelligent people should decide for themselves whether we are overdue an update (which in a subtle way is actually very different to saying that intelligent people should be expected to go to the template's history to see out when the last update was). At some times it may be appropriate not to update for a couple of days, whereas in other two day periods there may be three or four things that clearly warrant posting. —WFC— 08:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

For the reasons discussed above, removing the colors would be a significant improvement. I don't think that setting longer times for them would be, as this would merely shift the aforementioned announcements to different arbitrary points. (As previously noted, it's as harmful to declare that an update isn't needed as it is to declare that one is needed.)

So if there isn't consensus for the timer's outright elimination, I'm on board with Night w's "generic timer" compromise. —David Levy 11:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- The timer and colors often provide a reminder to me that ITN is stagnating and that I should consider nominating something that I wouldn't have bothered my time for, or sometimes to update a nominated article because we need it posted. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

But ITN's turnover is undesirably slow nearly all the time. So this corroborates what I wrote above. You (and presumably many other editors) interpret a grey timer as an indication that updating the section isn't necessary/important at that point. This is rarely true.

That ITN items linger for days on end is one of the most common complaints received about the main page, so I don't understand why we send a signal that one new item every 12/24 hours is sufficient. We should be encouraging contributions without interruption.

This is what bothers most me about the timer. Its color coding is completely artificial and lacks any relevance to when the template should be updated. If four suitable items arise in one day, we should post all of them (despite the grey color). If no suitable items arise in four days, we shouldn't post any (despite the red color). The timer, which appears to carry official weight, is telling the community to update the section too often and not often enough. —David Levy 01:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If anything, I'd like to see ITN turnover much more rapidly, as long as article updates meet our standards. Having more material on the front page draws in new readers to more articles and does a service to Wikipedia. Khazar2 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  I strongly agree that ITN should have faster turnover. Please see the above exchange regarding the timer's role in discouraging this (when it's grey). How do you feel about the idea to keep the timer but eliminate the color coding? —David Levy 22:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as per the various other opponents. Khuft (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I am afraid there are just not enough quality nominations that we could give up the template, but I do think that the timeouts for yellow and red should be adjusted to at least double of what they are now. On weekends (Saturday midnight to Monday midnight UTC), we should be required to post only one update.

When the template was introduced target was set to at least 14 stories per week (new story every 12 hours), which is infeasible at our current throughput. Obviously, we should not give up on our rigours regarding global and encyclopedic viewpoint, but establishing acceptance on these criteria is not always a fast process (ways to improve it are welcome..) If we aggressively posted every news item backed by good-quality article updates we could as well rename to "In The Tabloids". ITN is different from DYK and other Main page sections in that they have a virtually inexhaustible supply of content (Wikipedia itself), while we are bound to specific kinds of global news items that do have an corresponding article. Personally I am comfortable with In The News having a "slow" turnaround; it's a handy portal to the big events of the last few days. --hydrox (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to pick on just Americans. I just want to highlight an issue we have with a lot of nominations. I see a lot of discussions which could be paraphrased like this..

Proposer: This was the greatest farnarkling Grand Final ever. We simply must post it!

Response: Ah, but it's only played in your little country, so nobody cares.

P: Yes, but Gridiron is only played in your country. No-one else cares.

R: Yes, but there's a lot more of us, so the TV audience is much bigger, so it matters.

In both cases we're talking about a sport played largely in only one country. Similar debates occur about entertainers, elections, etc. There ARE a lot of Americans, and they are very well represented here. There's not many farnarkling fans, but they are a majority of the population in their country.

So, should we post more American things because there's a lot more Americans? (I know that similar arguments are presented from Soccer fans, who are generally in the UK.) The English speaking headquarters of global news agencies are also located in the US and UK, which means that content from those places inevitably gets greater news coverage. That doesn't mean it's actually more important to the whole world.

Should smaller countries with a unique culture never crack a mention here because not many people live there?

My own view is that as a global encyclopaedia we should be as inclusive as possible, covering stuff from as many diverse places and cultures as possible. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As shocked as I am to find myself expressing agreement with you in a section titled "There's an awful lot of Americans", I think that you've hit the nail on the head. ITN's turnover is far too slow and its diversity is far too low. I don't understand why some editors wish to promote systemic bias instead of countering it. It isn't as though we're running out of room for items, and if someone actually has taken the time to appropriately update the relevant article (far from a given), why not showcase this work? Further, endless bickering over such matters consumes a great deal of time better spent on other endeavors.

It's for these reasons that I've steadfastly supported our longstanding agreement to automatically including the premier championship(s) of every major sport, provided that the requisite article update occurs. Whether this principle still has consensus has been called into question and is under discussion on the ITN/R talk page. —David Levy 01:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks David. Yes, the heading was designed to attract attention, and I was careful to not say "There's a lot of awful Americans..." Yes, it's the bickering that bothers me. Sport is covered by the "premier championship(s) of every major sport" policy, but it hardly ever prevents argument. Other topics aren't covered at all, and almost always lead to discussions like that above. I wish we could pin down whether small countries matter or not. This comes from a citizen of a smallish country, but definitely not of the smallest kind. I still believe a couple of nominations I've made were largely and very wrongly ignored because, despite my best efforts, nobody from the big countries could be bothered even trying to comprehend their cultural significance. I'm not bitter about it. I just wish more people wanted to learn more about places other than the one where they live. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with your general point, aside from sports, it seems like this problem has more to do with the nominations than the voting. To look just at the last few days, Donna Summer is arguably an American icon, but she's still getting (barely) quashed. Carlos Fuentes, on the other hand, made it to the main page without a fight, as did the Japanese wireless research with T-rays. I'd be happy to nominate more people that are the equivalent of Maurice Sendak for, say, Russia, or India, but those articles are likely to be in poor shape to begin with, and are less likely to be noticed by a US or UK wiki-editor in the news. Sports always raise everyone's hackles, but I'm not sure the problem goes beyond that. Khazar2 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. We've had a recent discussion about ignoring the elections of smaller countries. And that's my point. Why do small places not matter? HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Big countries/little countries is for me a different issue than being too Amerocentric, though I can see how they're related. I'm not big on seeing the world purely in terms of national borders. If I put up a post about a governor's election in a midsize US state, or the change of a top official of a Chinese province, or a state of India, it would be laughed off of ITN (and understandably). Yet all of those affect far larger populations than, say, Nauru. I feel like aiming for regional/global diversity of news is generally more practical than keeping score by nation. I'm not saying I'd oppose all Nauru national elections, but it wouldn't be a slam dunk for me either; I'd be looking for something more like a regime change there.

To speak to the original issue of non-American news, though, I agree we need far more news (especially non-election news) from places like India, China, Russia, Brazil, etc. for global balance. I feel like the problem is just getting enough nominations on those topics. Khazar2 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the above... Re-reading your original comment, I understand your point better. But for me it's just as important to cover subcultures of major countries (look at the diversity of peoples in Burma, India, Indonesia, etc.) as it is to cover subcultures in smaller countries. The U.S., for example, contains dozens of indigenous groups that have maintained unique cultures, but it's not practical for us to cover Coeur d'Alene people tribal council elections or Cajun cultural news simply because they are an independent group. Ultimately I think size does have to matter to a large degree. Khazar2 (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We used to only post the earth-shattering deaths. It's quite ridiculous the level to which ITN has fallen regarding death postings. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with this sentiment. The amount of 'recent deaths' postings have spiralled out of control, and it seems to me like with every new 'recent deaths' post we avail ourselves to setting the precedent for someone of a similar level of notability (or slightly lower notability) to occupy an ITN slot when they die. I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, but in the last several years the only deaths that have significant global notability are Michael Jackson and Moammar Qaddafi, perhaps Steve Jobs. Perhaps a case can be made for Whitney Houston. But those are the only 'earth-shattering' deaths that I recall. Colipon+(Talk) 03:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is one of our perennial problems. As an English language encyclopedia, we have British and American editors forever making the case for their sphere of influence having the greater pull. There is no solution - we'll never agree on all those things which have divided us since the civil war, be it the death penalty, how to cook bacon or whether baseball is notable enough to go on the front page of Wikipedia.

On the specific subject of deaths and criteria for posting on ITN, it's refreshing that we're being more inclusive, in my opinion. doktorb _words^deeds 06:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm also a fan of posting deaths. They bring in a lot of new editors to important articles, and often result in some good improvements. They also help us get children's lit, music, style, etc. into the ITN, inviting a wider range of editors than a more politics-and-disasters-only approach would. Khazar2 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there's an inherent flaw in the initial argument, in that it seems to imply that events or items which relate singularly to any country except the United States are somehow fine, but that any event which relates singularly to the United States is somehow unwanted. That seems like bullshit, almost every article we post has a primary nation of interest, and the U.S. should not be singled out for being ignored by ITN. I have a suggestion for HiLo48: If getting items from other countries on ITN is important to you, please improve articles relating to such events to a decent state. Since ITN is about building the encyclopedia primarily, if there is an imbalance of items at ITN, its because people who complain about the imbalance spend too much time complaining about it, and not enough time preparing articles worthy of appearing on the main page. The whole point of anything at Wikipedia is to provide a means to write better articles. So, if some non-American topic is getting the short end, feel free to make a really good article about it, and nominate it. Complaining that too many articles about American subjects get covered by news sources, and too many improve articles about American subjects seems like a pointless thing. Would you rather people stopped improving articles related to American subjects? That isn't going to happen. Instead, find some subject that has nothing to do with America and make that article good enough to appear on the main page. --Jayron32 01:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish you had read more of my text, rather than just the heading, and not turned this into a platform for a personal attack. I was really only opening a discussion, not pushing an opinion. You may have a point about quality of articles, but it's up to us all to care about that. One nomination of mine some weeks ago had an excellent article, but never made it. Have a look back at the hypothetical discussion in my first post and comment on that please. If we end up with a policy that says population sizes (in UK and US for example) can override national interests, it would at least end the bickering at ITN/C. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, keep making good articles about non-American topics at ITN, and I will keep supporting them. People will write about what they have experience with and expertise in, and that is unavoidable. Please keep working on making encyclopedia articles better. Also, please point out the sentence where you were personally attacked. --Jayron32 01:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I really didn't think much of your edit summary of "there's an awful lot of one person not making non-American articles good enough to pass muster..." While they certainly need to be fully up to scratch, it's not so much the articles that I was talking about. It's discussions of the kind paraphrased in my first post that concern me. They occur far to often and rarely have a clear resolution. I'd love to see a way around these "mine is bigger than yours" contests. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The way around it is what I proposed in the section above: There are no mutually agreed-upon concepts of importance, which is an entirely personal concept. People are only willing to support (from an importance standpoint) those topics they find personally, singularly, and individually important, and will oppose those topics they find personally, singularly, and individually unimportant. That is simply not a productive way to do business. Instead, we should base ITN on article quality and coverage in news sources. If it appears as a lead story on the BBC or CNN or a similar source of national or international news, and there's a good article, it is fodder for ITN. Wikipedians should not be making judgements, period. We should be presenting evidence. We can only avoid the pissing contests by not having the pissing contests. And that means we avoid the problem altogether. Just don't make that part of the decision making process. If it is in the news, it is in the In The News. --Jayron32 17:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That should be our slogan. "If it's in the news, it's In The News." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the issues that I've frequently observed in discussions, as someone who is neither British nor American, is that there is a lot of Anti-American backlash, perhaps to the point of being unfair to Americans. I do agree that there are a lot of frivolous postings that are of only local importance (say, the election of Al Franken to the Senate), but there are also notable American events that get shut out. One prime example that I often use is NCAA March Madness, an article that generates an extremely large number of hits (rivalling if not surpassing some of the major leagues), but gets voted down purely on grounds that it is "too local" to the United States. Colipon+(Talk) 03:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Another example is the results of the US Republican presidential primaries. That is undoubtedly of greater significance than an election in Nauru (and media all over the world agree, except for Wikipedia), but the latter gets a "free pass", but the former gets trampled upon for being too American. Colipon+(Talk) 04:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is of greater global significance, but Nauruans shouldn't be ignored either. I note that California has a population 50% greater than the whole of my country, Australia, so purely on a population basis we should post more stuff about California than Australia. My point with this thread is that such a case can validly be made, but we need to decide if that's what we want. Without making that decision the bickering will continue forever. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but we shouldn't (necessarily) post fewer things about the U.S. than about the whole of Europe because the former is just one country. The United States is a big and important country. There are events that happen in the U.S. that gain significant attention worldwide that wouldn't had they occurred in other countries. Sorry if that's what you have derisively and repeatedly called a dick-measuring contest, but we don't live in fantasy land. We live in reality, where the actions and events of some countries get more attention than others. -- tariqabjotu 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll never be able to truly match coverage to population in any case; China, India, and Indonesia are bigger than the US and UK, but I don't know that any of us have the interests and language skills to keep up articles on their news the way we do English-speaking-world news. But if you'd like this codified into policy, clearly I think we need to have more news about the US (and indeed, of California) than about Andorra. It's not the only factor for me, but something truly amazing would need to happen in Andorra--the end of a forty-year regime, a hideous natural disaster, the assassination of half the parliament, etc.--to make me want to see an Andorra-specific story on the main page, just as it would take an astonishing event to make me want to see a Wyoming-specific story on the main page. For me, the lower the population, the higher the bar. (on the converse end, I wouldn't mind seeing us try to get more China/India coverage to make our coverage more global.) Khazar2 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I just saw last month's discussion on ITN/R about elections of small countries--I assume that's what this discussion is spinning out of. The decision there is quite a surprise to me, but I'm willing to abide by it at least in the case of elections. Khazar2 (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My motivation came partly out of the election discussion (it really is impossible to decide where to draw a line that will please everyone that wants one), but it's broader than that. There's sport, and music, and deaths... In my first post I said "The English speaking headquarters of global news agencies are also located in the US and UK, which means that content from those places inevitably gets greater news coverage. That doesn't mean it's actually more important to the whole world." Our TV news broadcasts in Australia often end with a piece of cute trivia from the US, not because it's important, but because it's available. We have our own cute trivia, but news organisations are lazy. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If the process by which ITN postings are selected become more streamlined and objective much like the way DYK is run today, I reckon there would be more posts from minority topics if editors were just given the right incentives. That said, as someone who likes to write articles on China-related topics, I have found most of my attempts at nomination successful, if only because of the dearth of China postings. I am surprised we don't have more for India (apart from perhaps cricket), because that country has a large contingent of English-speaking Wikipedians. Colipon+(Talk) 15:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been contributing to DYK too, and I haven't noticed incentives on topics that are not ordinarily written about. For example, I've written tons about college basketball in the Philippines, which consistently gets higher page view counts vs. [GAA events and even the AFL Grand Finals, but I don't think those will be posted at ITN even if the importance criterion is lowered or even removed. Indeed, the only way for non-ITNR sporting events to be featured on the Main Page while the tournament is ongoing is via DYK –HTD 22:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There are two proposals (made by users who aren't me) to change the way ITN is styled. The first would create a separate section (or ticker) for recent deaths, and the second would add a similar section for elections. The examples provided are only mock-ups of what they might look like, styling could be improved if there was consensus to make the changes. I do not believe it's intended to be an either or situation (though that could be decided). Hot Stop 04:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In ice hockey, the IIHF World Championship concludes with Russia defeating Slovakia in the final (tournament MVP Evgeni Malkin pictured). In rugby union, the Heineken Cup concludes with Leinster defeating Ulster in the final. In association football, the UEFA Champions League concludes with Chelsea defeating Bayern Munich in a penalty shootout in the final. Facebook, Inc. raises US$16 billion with its initial public offering, the third largest in U.S. history. Using terahertz radiation, researchers from the Tokyo Institute of Technology set a new record for wireless data transmission speed. Recent deaths: Robin Gibb – Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – Donna Summer Wikinews – More current events...

My proposal:

• Most eligible deaths would be posted in a format similar to the example on the right, with only names of the recently deceased (no blurbs or other details). Anywhere from two to four deaths will be listed at a time.
• At least one of the criteria at WP:ITN/DC must still be fulfilled.
• All postings to the "death ticker" portion of ITN will still be subject to the same update and consensus requirements that are currently in place. However, due to the fact that most deaths will be given less prominence within the section, it is expected that there will be less opposition to well-qualified candidates whose deaths were expected, or whose influence wasn't "international" enough.
• In the event of the death of an individual of overwhelming worldwide significance and influence, the death may be given a normal blurb if there is consensus to do so (the "Michael Jackson rule"). It is expected that such postings will be infrequent, perhaps ~4 per year (strictly a guess). If the death is posted as a normal blurb, it will be omitted from the death ticker.

Some may see this as a radical change, but I believe this would be a start towards making our handling of deaths on ITN more consistent, less subjective and less energy-wasting. Improvements, suggestions or criticisms are welcome. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And a quick note, I have included Donna Summer, who wasn't posted, because I believe it is fairly representative of the type of recent death that probably would have been posted under my proposed system. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support- This seems reasonable because we can end confusing discussions over the death-criteria and what is a valid argument, as well as utilizing the already existing recent deaths page more effectively. Deaths don't really belong on ITN as blurbs because they rarely have a major effect on current events, but are notable for their own reasons. However, I would make a distinction between the ticker and the blurbs, as I don't like the way they flow together. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support as long as they still go through the process at ITNC, and the section is separated more than in the current proposal. Hot Stop 02:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, David Levy's tweak alleviates my second concern. Hot Stop 04:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted (explanation forthcoming). —David Levy 04:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's here FYI, but I think any stylistic issues could be worked out if consensus was reached to include it. Hot Stop 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've partially reverted my revert. I was worried about possible confusion, but it's not a very big deal. I don't oppose a divider, but I think a shorter divider may look nicer. As for the dots, everything else on the main page seems to be dashes, so we should probably use dashes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, upon further consideration, I think that you're right about the dashes. We don't currently use dots outside the Wikipedia languages section. —David Levy 04:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Hot Stop, and per my liking for the ominous phrase "death ticker". But just as a technicality, being an orange-tagged mess of an article also contributed to Donna Summer not making the main page; I'd hate to see an article like that end up there due to lower standards. Khazar2 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Her inclusion on the example template assumes that any article issues would have been fixed before posting. I don't recommend changing the article quality guidelines at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment Today's death of Eugene Polley seems like a great example of the kind of death some form of death ticker might allow us, but that would be a sure fail for a full blurb on ITN. Khazar2 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, on the grounds that deaths blurbs are the same for every instance it happens; namely, that "X has died at the age of Y". These blurbs never change, so a ticker conserves space without losing any pertinent details (except for, perhaps, the age and place of death). Colipon+(Talk) 03:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support something along these lines. See Wikipedia:In the news/Death criteria#Proposed compromise (and the sections below it) for past discussion of other possible implementations. —David Levy 03:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose So there have been a lot of deaths in the news lately. Lately. Emphasis on lately. This is not a recurring problem, nor has it ever been a problem. I don't get why people are so against deaths being posted as being In the News like anything else. We have three sports blurbs right now with extremely similar wording. A couple weeks ago, there were three or four elections with poorly updated articles. We now have, what, two deaths on ITN and suddenly there's a crisis. However, when someone had the audacity to suggest that the elections of countries smaller than East Timor, which most people have probably never even heard of, should be judged on their own merits and not shooed through like those of, well, important countries, there were accusations of bias and concerns that the ITN institution was coming crashing down. The double standards -- where certain types of stories in the news are given a heard time, while certain types of stories that aren't get an easy approval -- are not something I'm interested in. -- tariqabjotu 04:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, I want to mention that Donna Summer wasn't omitted from ITN because it didn't get consensus for posting, although some could argue that. The article still has an orange tag, and used to be in an even poorer condition. -- tariqabjotu 04:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  I can't speak for others, but I don't support the idea because of any perceived "crisis". I support it for the reasons covered in the 2008 discussion to which I linked above (some of which admittedly fall outside this specific proposal's scope). —David Levy 04:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  I do sense though, that there is a certain 'snowball' effect of posting more deaths - which is that it begins to legitimize more 'recent deaths' nominations. I think if you go through the history of ITN death posts since 2010 you will see that we have increased the number of death postings (perhaps without realizing it). If a death ticker is not a solution, then we will need to up the ante on the notability of deaths (Michael Jackson rule). Colipon+(Talk) 04:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  Under this proposal, I expect that the number of deaths that we post would increase, so I'm certainly not against deaths being posted. I simply believe that this proposal would be a more efficient way to deliver relevant information to our readers. I think Colipon makes a good point: besides the name, there usually isn't a whole lot of vital information that needs to be conveyed in a typical death blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose simple listing of names of people who recently died. I previously supported David Levy's proposal in the past (see link provided by him above), and I would support something like that. The emphasis should be on the person's life and their article, so we should give at least some note of context of what the person has done or what field they were a major part of. Spencer^T♦C 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Part of the point of ITN is to inform and/or spark the interest of readers. That's best done using sentences. Also, the proposal would probably tend towards the frequent front-page linking of poor quality material. Formerip (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• The requirements for article quality would be the same. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not according to the proposer: I have included Donna Summer, who wasn't posted, because I believe it is fairly representative of the type of recent death that probably would have been posted under my proposed system.

I think it's obvious that if we were to give deaths their own section, more deaths would be posted and the standards for posting would naturally drop. Formerip (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In light of this discussion, I still think a better approach would be to dictate a set of objective standards for the state of articles and the quality of updates as they appear on the main page. For example, article must be at least 5,000 characters in length, update must be well-written, reflect due weight, and contextualized. As of now, ITN articles have the lowest standards of scrutiny out of any main page material. Colipon+(Talk) 01:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

One could argue OTD has even less scrutiny, given that there's no formal process to vet articles before they're listed. Hot Stop 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the proposer also said somewhere, "Her inclusion on the example template assumes that any article issues would have been fixed before posting. I don't recommend changing the article quality guidelines at all." Because items must still be approved at WP:ITN/C, quality standards will drop only if we allow it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support on the grounds that it should help lessen the level of subjectivity when we discuss deaths. Deaths are particularly controversial at ITNC, because the deaths criteria are quite subjective. Lessening the perceived importance of posting a death should make it easier for posting admins to cut through the chaff on marginal cases.

  I support this proposal as-is, but would suggest that a death with a good image should be granted a blurb, to enable the image to be used. The subject would be shifted to the deaths section when an image for a more recent story became available. In practise, the majority of international "superstars" have a suitable image. Hence, the majority of truly global figures would end up having a blurb for a short period of time, but we would no longer end up with situations where more than one death has a blurb, or where ordinarilly post-able people are rejected due to the amount of recent deaths. —WFC— 13:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Unhelpful to have such a permanent solution to such a transient problem: will result in either lowering of the threshold, or stagnation within the ticker. See alternative proposal below for when several deaths that might deserve higher profile attention than is afforded at WP:Recent deaths coincide. Kevin McE (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Since someone has boldly plowed forth and suggested a "Recent deaths" ticker, I would like to continue the unfinished discussion on the election ticker. My original proposal can be seen below; it is not meant to be final, and I welcome any suggestions for improvement. I try to identify the strengths and the weaknesses of this format as well.

Bhoja Air Flight 213 crashes on its final approach in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing all 127 people on board. India successfully test launches the Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile. American broadcaster, television producer and music promoter Dick Clark (pictured in 1990) dies at the age of 82. North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un delivers a speech for the first time. Amid a dispute with Repsol and the government of Spain, Argentina announces re-nationalisation of the oil company YPF. In Afghanistan, Taliban insurgents launch coordinated attacks on NATO's headquarters, foreign embassies, military bases and the country's parliament. Elections: East Timor, France, Finland, El Salvador Uttar Pradesh, Burma (by-election), United States (Republican Primary) Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

An "elections ticker" would look something like this box.

Advantages of this approach:

• Solves the "undue weight" issue of microstates
• Reduces the space given to elections and politics in general on ITN, while retaining the number of articles with ITN exposure (this should be a win-win really for both sides of the debate) to attract timely updates and user involvement (per comment by User Khazar)
• Can include elections prior to voting day, as well as after the vote has taken place, if the story continues to develop (Would be very useful in recent Greek elections, where no conclusive results were forthcoming)
• Places widely followed elections with significant readership interest right on the main page for easy access without it being 'cycled through' over a 5-day span
• Easily includes 'special elections' without giving them undue weight and avoids discussions over sovereignty criteria
  • Special elections includes but is not limited to regional elections, significantly notable by-elections, party congresses/nomination contests, referenda, elections for religious figures, and elections in non-sovereign entities (note: something like the US Republican primaries generates much worldwide media attention but will never make it onto ITN due to current restraints)
  • Can include elections for World Bank, EU, UNGA etc.
• Avoids debates over blurbs and subjective evaluation of what one-liner best describes the outcome of an election.
• Allows obviously notable elections in countries with a favourable systemic bias (e.g. US presidential primaries) to gain exposure without too much unnecessary debate, while also allowing an easy 'in' for elections in countries with unfavourable systemic bias (Uttar Pradesh).

Some practical issues/drawbacks would include:

• Will this require too much upkeep for constant updating? Who determines when an election should be put up and when it should be taken down? What standards will be used?
• Does it still require editors to nominate elections to the ticker through a special process akin to ITN/C (particularly if we go forth with the idea of including 'special' elections?
  • If so, should a new talk page be started for candidates purely for elections ticker?
• General resistance to changing status quo, and involvement from wider WP community to approve proposal.
• Do article 'update length requirements' change?
• Confusion over which elections are general elections and which ones are presidential elections.
• Does not solve problem of royal succession - those are not 'elections'
• Cannot highlight the articles of candidates themselves or announce winners.

Please lend your thoughts. Someone who has more coding experience can probably improve on the format a little. Colipon+(Talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unlike the "death ticker" where the story is who died (and can be expressed by using the person's name), the story for any election is the result, which can't be explained as easily. Plus, it doesn't solve the problem it aims to solve (whether or not national elections are of equal importance). Hot Stop 04:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As an FYI, this ticker is not explicitly a response to the "election of very small countries" issue - it is meant to tackle a series of problems, including the overabundance of election posts on ITN in general. Also, I identify the 'announcement of results' as a weakness above, and would appreciate constructive proposals to remedy it. Colipon+(Talk) 04:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well the first advantage you gave is "Solves the 'undue weight' issue of microstates," which I say it won't because it just moves them to a separate section. I realize it would also help with reducing the amount of space elections take up, but I consider that a minor issue given that elections in individual countries are generally years apart. Hot Stop 04:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose I like that you're taking the bull by the horns on this, but I agree with HotSpot's concern. I also feel that a user is going to be far less likely to click through as she would be with a blurbed election, and loses the useful option to go straight to the winning candidate page instead. (Personally, I find our election articles helpful but also insanely boring; I'd always rather read the bio article of the winner, and I'd hate to see landmark victory like Hollande's get shortened to "France"). Most importantly, I suppose, I feel that unless we find something absolutely quantifiable--total articles on Google News, total population of the group/region/city--there's no bar we can set that won't be argued about the same way current elections are argued about. (and I don't think we should actually try to find a number like that) If we move it lower, it becomes a question of what US states to include, what Indian regions, what by-elections, what indigenous tribes, what NGOs, etc. It's always going to have to be a process, I think. Khazar2 (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  I agree about the point on reading about winners rather than just elections, and I do make explicit mention of this above. In light of that it would seem like removing all elections from ITNR would be a sensible option. Colipon+(Talk) 06:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Hot Stop too. Non-extraordinary deaths are self-explanatory, while election items require context. —David Levy 04:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And go further, by removing elections from ITN/R. Those that are important will get approval and posted like any other story. I don't give a damn if it's racist or jingoist or a systematic bias or whatever. There are some countries whose elections are more important and in the news than others. We should stop pretending that all are created equally because we live in Wikipedialand where all countries' heads of state and law-making bodies contribute equally to the global political discourse. Elections are posted with far lower standards, both in newsworthiness and update quality, than nearly anything else in the section, and I have no idea why. Many, if not most, of them are not that important. -- tariqabjotu 04:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral A solution has to be found to death and election nominations because I fear we're heading for a complete breakdown in the process (if not our working relationships) if we don't. I am content that a ticker helps. It would remove the 'race to the bottom' which seems to exist and potentially allow a wider range of nominated stories to make it through to the ITN box 'proper'. However I am struck by Khazar's interesting perspective on this - reducing all election stories to the county names would devalue the purpose of linking in the first place. If you don't know the user Nightstallion, I recommend you find their "Notes" section, which links to each and every election, news story and developing articles. As brilliant as that is, I worry about ITN becoming an index in that way. With all this said, we do need a solution, because there's far, far, far too many discussions going on at the moment without resolution, and in any other context, we would have walked out of the boardroom doktorb _words^deeds 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Part of the point of ITN is to inform and/or spark the interest of readers. That's best done using sentences. Also, the proposal would probably tend towards the frequent front-page linking of poor quality material. If this is going to be proposed every week from now on, could the proposers be so kind as to copy and paste this oppose on each occasion. Formerip (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. How is this solving the microstate issue? You still have all the microstates, plus you now have Uttar Pradesh too (or the mayoral elections in London, as in a previous example of the ticker). In addition, as per the commentators above, having a blurb at least provides a minimum of context (e.g. which type of elections took place). Khuft (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Unhelpful to have such a permanent solution to such a transient problem: will result in either lowering of the threshold, or stagnation within the ticker. See alternative proposal below for when several elections coincide. Kevin McE (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's just all calm down? I don't know if there's an area of Wikipedia so prone to flashes of temper quite like ITN has been over the past few months. And that includes Israel/Palestine and the Cheese project.

I'm going to take the British solution by offering you all a nice cup of tea and some toast. doktorb _words^deeds 05:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you've never worked at WP:DYK. =) But I'll join you in hosting by offering coffee and a good nutritious Big Mac for my American colleagues. Khazar2 (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're spot on, Khazar, ITN is currently at the stage that DYK was around the time of the copyvio on main page controversy — some people think it's not good enough, and want to improve it; some think it's not good enough and never will and want to scrap it; and yet others find the status quo perfectly fine. Count me in the last group. Everyone needs to take a step back and forget about trying to force their opinions through for now. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that things are getting much too heated here. I think any users who dare venture into these discussions need to prepare themselves for hurt feelings, uncivil and curt remarks, and a seemingly uncooperative ambiance in general. Perhaps it is because we've developed a habit of throwing a "support" and "oppose" at everything.

Regardless, I think we are all here to improve the encyclopedia we all love, and it is understandable that users have strong feelings about its home-page. We are asking a lot from our volunteers - could you imagine how much work it takes to do an overhaul of the Yahoo! homepage?

As for myself, I only became involved in ITN because I saw blatantly non-notable subjects being posted in such high-profile slots. Later I found the discussions so interesting that I decided to stick around. Colipon+(Talk) 06:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had Kosovo on my watchlist for some time. Compared to that, this is pleasant small talk. Khuft (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, part of the reason why I've not been as involved here as I used to be is that the drama quotient seems to have gone up, and I don't have the time to read all the reams of discussion it's generating. I've got no idea what the status of the various proposals is, hopefully it'll just keep ticking over so I can drop in and out. Modest Genius ^talk 14:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As was discussed in 2008, I believe that a "death ticker" could solve a different problem. In the above proposal, it's noted that the same inclusion criteria would apply. But editors have opined (and I agree) that when it comes to deaths, there's logic in setting aside the article update requirement (provided that the article meets our other quality standards).

In most instances, a notable person's death is mundane (and won't spur much an article update beyond a simple acknowledgment that it occurred and possibly comments from other notable persons). This often results in the death's omission from ITN, which makes sense under the current setup (in which it's implied that the articles were substantially updated).

But why not create a separate subsection intended to link to articles lacking substantial updates, which nonetheless contain appropriate coverage of the deceased persons' lives (information of great and timely interest to readers)? —David Levy 21:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with point, and would add further that there could be potentially other articles with unsubstantive updates (or incremental updates) which may nonetheless garner 'wide interest' and therefore deserve an article link on the main page. A good recurring example is sports teams that win annual championships - the only update on that article would be to say that the team has won. The postings are otherwise routine. Similarly, Facebook's IPO and now flood of litigation seems to be generating a large amount of interest - but the issue is too nuanced for a blurb on ITN. I say, just link the relevant section of the Facebook inc. article. Colipon+(Talk) 22:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A good recurring example is sports teams that win annual championships - the only update on that article would be to say that the team has won.

No, we should have a reasonably detailed account of the event. Otherwise, sending readers to the article is unhelpful.

Conversely, when a notable individual dies, we might already have a high-quality writeup about his/her life.

Similarly, Facebook's IPO and now flood of litigation seems to be generating a large amount of interest - but the issue is too nuanced for a blurb on ITN.

I don't see how.

I say, just link the relevant section of the Facebook inc. article.

That wouldn't provide sufficient context. —David Levy 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that the blurb-centred approach is flawed, but I respect other editors opinions otherwise. Blurbs almost always demand some sort of 'conclusion' (deaths, sporting events, elections) or 'milestone' (records, firsts, 'lasts'), and this is simply not always the case with subjects that are in the news. Many elections are of fervent public interest prior to their results being posted, for example. Colipon+(Talk) 23:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)