Wikipedia talk:In the news

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

ITNR archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Kosmos 482

I've never posted anything to ITN, so I'll just mention that Kosmos 482 (or at least the remaining bits that are still in orbit) is going to reenter the Earth's atmosphere sometime in the next few weeks. It's massive enough that hunks will probably reach the Earth's surface, in a location as yet undetermined. So keep an eye on this; it'll make a good ITN item. RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like in the next few days: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/07/science/kosmos-482-soviet-spacecraft-reentry.html?unlocked_article_code=1.FU8.dBKA.ZWp0pviqXDDZ&smid=url-share RoySmith (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time to re-visit ITNR election criteria?

There are currently two ITNC noms that appear to comply with the letter of ITNR election rules, but seem to be getting significant community pushback as potentially violating their spirit (Romania, South Korea) making me wonder if the criteria needs to be tightened. A) Is there an issue with the criteria as presently constituted? And B) If so, how can it be improved? Left guide (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of SK, I can't think of anyway to rewrite the rule that would disqualify the SK one but allow inclusion of similar cases of acting presidents/pms etc. I think we need to be ITNR items can always have IAR applied if that one event falls outside the intent of the ITNR, which would not require any changes there. Masem (t) 20:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Ok, to cover future situations like Romania, what if we add the words "final round" to the third bullet point? It would read

*The results of the final round of general elections in:

Left guide (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is that for multiround elections that is a good clarification Masem (t) 23:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if something only has one round, it seems inherently implied that that's also the final round; it's the final round of one. But if it causes confusion or ambiguity, it can be incorporated as a footnote instead. Left guide (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another common issue is that elections produce a complex result and so a coalition has to be formed. The formation of the government and its head then takes time to negotiate. The current new German Chancellor is a fresh example. This wasn't marked as ITN/R initially but it seems that it ought to be. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of bureaucracy creep, and would argue for common sense in assessing these cases (via IAR, if necessary). The South Korea situation looks very pedantic when a presidential election is scheduled for in a month - let's focus on that as it is the more momentous event. As far as I remember, we never posted the Bangladeshi caretaker PMs that always got appointed before an election, for the same reason. In the Romania case: we've never posted 1st turn results, and two-turn elections are actually quite frequent (France, for instance, has a 2-turn presidential election). In the German case: I would argue against a second posting if the new Chancellor / PM is the leader of the party that won the elections (and that one was posted). If someone else becomes Prime Minister (as after the recent Dutch elections), it merits a second posting after the elections posting. Khuft (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's now also "German new chancellor" which seems to be running into similar issues of having disputed ITNR status (at least in spirit), so that's a total of three in the past week. Left guide (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This situation could probably be avoided by adding a clarification to both the elections and change of leader lines stating that there is only one ITN/R election/leadership change per cycle. Any subsequent news stories linked to an election or change of leader that's already been posted is subject to open discussion and the community can form a consensus or otherwise as it sees fit. So in the South Korean case, the current "cycle" began when the former president was impeached. The community could then discuss subsequent interim presidents etc. on their merits without being burdened by the notion that they're ITN/R. Similarly for the Germany case where we posted an election about Merz being the leader of the largest party and now are debating whether to post his accession to Chancellor. Let the community decide the matter on its merits, not be hampered by claims that this is ITN/R. In many ways this is already the status quo, as we've never posted inaugurations of US presidents for example, even though by the letter of the law the inauguration is ITN/R, and those things are always in the news two months after the election. — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I am thinking that we should maybe have some statement, if just even a footnote, that explains for more complicated election systems (multi-rounds or parliamentary style) that the "final" election is the one that should be featured, not first- or second- rounds, or in the case of a parliamentary style, where the body and the ruler they elect are made on significantly different days, that those are considered separate for purposes of the ITNR. The South Korea thing still is an IAR-type situation. Masem (t) 12:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing timelines

Hi, can Timeline of the Gaza war (18 March 2025 – present) and Timeline of the M23 campaign (2025) be added in the same way the timelines for the Ukraine and Sudan wars have been done? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These should be suggested at WP:ITNC where the community can assess them for quality and regular updates. Step hen 23:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest them, but I would consider those poor quality articles because they are just reporting everything that happened on a given day without considering encyclopedic value. Masem (t) 00:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for adding to the "do not" on the ITNC header

Using the pope selection of the example of the problem, I think we should try to advices editors to not just pile on support for an ITNC that clearly has support for significance, and if anything to focus more on quality of the target articles.

Also in the same, input that is along the lines of "post ASAP" are also not helpful if quality has not been reviewed, since ITN is in no rush to post events.

How to word these I don't know. Masem (t) 19:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the suggestion, but people already ignore the six points that are there now. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What's the enforcement mechanism to make "Do not" stick? I doubt any admin is going to permit people to strike out !votes in violation of these clauses. It might be appropriate to include them in WP:ITNATA, but again, largely unread. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I might also add that the specific individual you and I are probably thinking of who makes the "post ASAP" gripes is not the type of person who would give a hoot about the "do nots" anyway. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "nominate an article" link on the main page takes you to WP:ITN/C. The first words in that are "Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines." Those guidelines are the main WP:ITN which is 1500 words of prose but still doesn't include WP:ITNDONT because that section is on the WP:ITN/C page. And, if you're on the WP:ITN/C page and follow the "skip to nominations" link near the top, that takes you to the top nomination, jumping past WP:ITNDONT and the rest of that big orange box.

So, it seems unlikely that most editors will read multiple pages of instructions and will follow the path of least resistance instead. What's needed is reorganization, not more TLDR.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve discussed this a couple of times. I agree that this is a valid problem, and my solution to it is moderation. I’ve closed several discussion in which a clear consensus on significance had already been reached with a note to focus on improving quality, and it worked well. I’m not against adding this to “do not”, but I share your concern that the wording is challenging.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is clearly identifying to !voters that the significance threshold is no longer in question. One possible way to do that might be to have a checklist for each ITN nomination, one for each of the different forks of the trident that need to be addressed - quality, significance, and reliable sources. Once a consensus is established for one or more of those items, a checkmark ✅ can be added and future !votes that address only those approved items can be struck out or moved to the side. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warmongering

Why is wikipedia warmongering. The only ongoing world events are wars and disasters. Jeez There is android show Google I / o 2025 https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/09/google-i-o-2025-what-to-expect-including-updates-to-gemini-and-android-16/ Baratiiman (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "warmongering". However, it is true that ITN does not add much to the ongoing section besides wars and disasters. Ongoing is defined as "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news." And unfortunately there is not much that meets this criteria. Natg 19 (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing events are for those that have worldwide significance and that have near daily reporting about them, which short of things like the Olympics or World Cups, are going to be typically about international conflicts. A trade show is not going to have either of those. Masem (t) 12:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tech demonstration is important global news? DarkSide830 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India Pakistan war

Why is this not in "ITN"? It's way more critical to global security than Rwanda. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was added to ITN a few days ago, but then removed because the article was in poor shape. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swallowed by the archives

There were two ready-tagged RD noms that were swallowed by the archiving bot. Is it still possible to post the RD noms? Tagging active RD admins @PFHLai and Stephen:. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azmun Jaafar & Bob Cowper are now on the ITN-RD line on MainPage. Thanks for the notice, Jeromi Mikhael. --PFHLai (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]