Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news

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

Nominatability of Iran–Israel proxy war as ongoing

[edit]

I'd like to know if Iran–Israel proxy war as ongoing is nominatable/nominatingly/nominationable. Web-julio (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but a concern is that there have been no major updates to that article since July 3, and it probably covers far too large of a time frame (decades) to be that useful. Ongoing is meant to be for shorter-term events that are getting near-daily coverage and updates. Masem (t) 05:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it now. I noticed others such as Mali War aren't there either, since they are longer/lasting. Web-julio (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism in death nominations

[edit]

I would like to encourage discussion on whether we should add that someone's age is not a valid reason for opposing a nomination for a death blurb to WP:ITNCDONT (note that there are oftentimes votes citing a non-existing policy called 'OLDMANDIES'). Those votes are an example of ageism and should be avoided. If we already have a line addressing ethnocentrism, then it is logical to address ageism as well. Your opinions are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong view on this particular proposal - it somewhat smacks of WP:CREEP. However, there's a recurrent issue of people citing firm reasons for their !votes which appear to be policy, but aren't. For example, in a recent 'OLDMANDIES' !vote we also see 'Manner of death not notable. Not serving at time of death.' But those aren't specific policy requirements for a death-blurb. Similarly, when we had the recent kerfuffle about the Oasis tour, there was a strong early oppose !vote which declared that we just don't post concerts and tours, which is similarly not an agreed policy. And every now and then numbers of hits on our own articles will be cited as justification, as though that is an accepted policy. It isn't.
To be clear, I'm fine with people arguing that we shouldn't post non-sitting leaders, or concerts, or whatever. But I very much dislike and oppose the misleading deployment of apparently settled policies or rules that are in fact nothing of the sort. And that comes up a lot in conjunction with the same sort of death-blurb discussions that OLDMANDIES features in. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing non-existing policies is a problem that needs to be addressed in general. 'OLDMANDIES' appears to be the most common example of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should add something to the yellow box that addresses this. Example, "Comments on this page frequently employ a tone that suggests they are derived from Wikipedia policy. Absent citation of policy, comments should be assumed to reflect the opinion of the editor." GreatCaesarsGhost 18:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that most ITN admins ignore such silliness anyway. If we look at the last ten people we posted death blurbs for, stretching back to January this year, eight of them were over 80 years old, and the other two were 76 and 78. Black Kite (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We do already have a page for this; it's WP:ITNRDBLURB which, for major figures such as Buhari, states

    The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. Comparisons to deaths of prior persons (we posted John Doe, so we should also post Jane Smith, or conversely we didn't post Bill Jones, so we cannot post Susie Johnson) are rarely considered sufficient to post in absence of consensus. One should also be wary of puffery in obituaries for a recently deceased person – using terms such as "legendary", "greatest of all time", "household name", etc.

    The phrase sui generis indicates that there are no exact rules and so the !votes may be based on any reason. Naturally, when editors present their reasons, they will tend to rationalise and justify them. For example, Amakuru argues that Buhari should be blurbed because he was "the two-time leader for a total of ten years, of the sixth-most populated country". Is this "puffery" or are these claims legitimate? There's no hard rules and so anything goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said when someone opposes a nomination related to a single country. Some editors opine that geographically limited impact is a valid reason for opposition. WP:ICNDONT practically gives undue weight to ethnocentrism compared to other forms of discrimination. If we want to be inclusive, we should either list all forms of discrimination or none.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ICNDONT practically gives undue weight to ethnocentrism ...: It's presence at WP:ITNCDONT presumably means it has community consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Community consensus isn’t a justification. There may be consensus that the sky is green, but it doesn’t mean it’s true.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but I have the feeling that those using OLDMANDIES would also object to younger people dying getting blurbs. Tweaking the policy won't do anything with regards to their objections; they'll just invent a new non-existant policy (NATURALCAUSE or something like that). Khuft (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest problem here is that the whole ITN section is literally owned by a number of admins—most of them with almost 20-year experience—who believe that the rules are set in stone and aren't open to addressing salient problems, which leads to a declining number of admins willing to maintain the section as well as editors participating in discussions overall. As a result, there are problems with delays in posting, rules-lawyering with non-existing policies, bludgeoning from single-purpose accounts, etc. You admit that those using OLDMANDIES will just invent a new non-existent policy, which is a red flag that a problem exists and requires action. Conceding that we can't do/won't change anything isn't a solution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest problem here is that the whole ITN section is literally owned by a number of admins ...: The community is free to update WP:ITN and WP:ITN/A. Take it up with the individual admin, or the appropriate noticeboard if needed, if they are not following consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a bit tricky. We want editors to keep in mind that the bulk of deaths are along the lines that it is "old person dies" without any fanfare over the death, and that's why we have the RD to at least cover these, and that blurbs should be for extraordinary cases, of which we have two general areas that are generally appropriate as well as any sui generis reasoning. But I think once someone has poised a blurb for an RD, it is better to argue "This death doesn't meet the general reasons we allow for a blurb" rather than the "old person dies" phrasing which can be dismissive, even though I read that as being equivalent to saying there's nothing special about the death to merit a blurb and valid. What is a problem is when editors refuse to acknowledge that we actually have these cases for RD blurbs. Consensus developed those, they exist, it does not help the discussion to act like they don't, and instead better to explain why a nomination doesn't meet the standard for RD blurbs than imposing one's personal stance on these. Masem (t) 12:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This I think is the point: If some editors are making the major figures case, and you respond OLDMANDIES, you are not registering an argument of any weight. We are constantly being told that there is no voting and the quality of the argument matters; OLDMANDIES is not an argument at all. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Masem, I don’t think there is any ageism at the moment and that this perception comes from an overly literal reading of regular users saying an RD isn’t notable enough for a blurb because there was nothing notable about the means of death. However, if this ITN-specific jargon is able to be misinterpreted, it will be, and those new ITN contributors we want to entice to stay could either perceive rampant ageism and decide against staying - or start using it that way. Neither is a positive outcome, so either the OLDMANDIES link should have proper explanation or we should start encouraging regulars to use more newbie friendly phrases. Kingsif (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many of these !voters would go to a funeral of a friend or family member saying "old man dies"? —Bagumba (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bit ridiculous to suggest ITNC is anything like a funeral. Kingsif (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back in 2016 when RD was proposed, I and others were repeatedly told RD would eliminate ITN/C arguments over obituary notability by making all those with an article on Wikipedia notable. I fought hard against RD, but was obviously overruled. For nearly a decade I have done my best to be a good sport and work with the decision to implement RD, but here is the same discussion, still going strong, just moved now to which death qualifies for a blurb.
And here I still am, saying this: The feature is called “In the News.” It’s my observation that not everyone who has a Wikipedia article who dies is in the news. Some actors, sports figures, etc. who die and are in the news can’t get even an RD listing due to demands that every show or team they ever worked with be cited, requiring considerable time and energy, and then a willing admin to post it prior to the date of death aging off eligibility for RD. So some editors get a feeling of continued futility. The ITN feature should actually be called “In the News, and a List of Articles of Recent Deaths of People That Wikipedians Have Completely Cited and an Administrator Posted Before it Went Stale.”
In any case, the ‘Old Man Dies’ rationale for obit blurb rejection is disgusting and offensive. Is the death in the news? Then post it, if the article is decent. My informal proposal: Dump RD, stop pondering articles on the marginally notable, and just issue escalating warnings and, if needful, sanctions to disruptive ‘Old Man Dies’ posters. Seriously, enough is Enough. Jusdafax (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we post it. This discussion is about whether or not a person not recently active in the field that game them fame deserves a blurb. (Or at least I think it is.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RD didn't start in 2016. What happened then was that the criteria were changed, removing the requirement that the subject should be "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". Andrew🐉(talk) 06:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption of acceptance?

[edit]

I'm truly shocked at how slow and inefficient this process is, given its basic purpose. Ukrainian boxer Oleksandr Usyk just achieved something absolutely glorious in his sport, and for his war ravaged country. And yet by some wierd combination a general lack of interest, a seemingly specific lack of boxing knowledge in those who have commented, and Wikipedia's bizarrely restrictive editing controls, it's going to be ignored. I've got an edit request for an update ready to to go, but it seems pointless even trying to push that through while there is such ambivalence over whether that would be sufficient. Simply making that request and noting it here, has been met with defeaning indifference.

  • Proposal: I think there needs to be a default presumption of acceptance of any well evidenced nomination, so it should be posted unless there is a clear and specific objection registered. AND the person objecting has the decency to stick around and answer/comment as appropriate. Night Grinder (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have this- it's WP:ITNR. And demanding that people stay online if they oppose ITN is an unfair request. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support improvement of the ITN process so that we get more items posted. A checklist approach would be better than the current system of open outcry. DYK is mainly driven by such a checklist and gets lots of articles posted every day.
As for this case, the Portal:Current events reported this news in a timely way on July 19. And lots of readers read the article at the time. The article did need a better update though. I have responded to the edit request and expanded the match report so that ITN's minimal standard is met. Night Grinder should please persevere so that they are able to make such edits themself.
Andrew🐉(talk) 07:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Joseph2302. In this case, I think the proposal would meet with a lot more support if there were a seperate article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I'm talking about. The people wanting to see a stand-alone article clearly dont even understand what the significant event here actually is. It wasn't the fight itself, which for Usyk was, in hindsight, a relatively easy beat down of an inferior opponent. It's what analysts/commentators are now finally admitting as fact, something previously only argued, based on this final bit of proof. He is the standout heavyweight of his generation, and arguably one of the top five in history. That's what the boxing world is discussing right now. A standalone fight article might not even be necessary, and can certainly wait. The logical place for Wikipedia to document the event, its significance, is in his biography. I have said all of this already. Why? What purpose is this repetition serving? Is anyone even paying attention? If they refuse to even read what's already been written, or follow along as the debate, such as it is, progresses, why should they have the power to apparently stall a worthwhile nomination until it naturally times out for no longer being current? Night Grinder (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What was our last boxing ITN? One of the Pacquiao fights? Incidentally Pacquiao also had a fight last weekend, but Usyk smoked him on page views. Boxing has a hard time here as it's different from other sports as there are multiple champions, and there's no subjective ways to rank boxers (pound for pound) and all. Imagine there was a time ITN posted more Gaelic sports than boxing. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In re that "hard time," I think we failed by defaulting to "nothing" when we couldn't come up with a standard. New undisputed champion seems like a pretty good measure to me. Assuming that some will not be nom'ed and others will lack an update, we'll post less than two per year. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This idea that a news item needs a separate article is just not necessary. We require a significant update to the target article, that's all. If it is a very new event, then yes, a separate article may make sense, but its equally as good to show how articles already of good quality receive appropriate updates when a significant event occurs within that topic. Requiring separate articles for every new event is how we are breaking NOTNEWS across WP in general, because that's not thinking about the long-term notability of events. Now, when this was first nominated, it did not have a fight update, but given the structure of the article it was clear that a summary of the fight and claiming the title would just have had to be added. Masem (t) 12:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal here is DOA, but I can see the frustration. Numerous editors asking for a standalone article when that has never been the standard comes across as bad faith opposition, even if that was not the intention. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not my intention. I wanted to see more content and more sources to demonstrate WP:ITNSIGNIF, and suggested a separate article as one way to do that (but not the only way). The wider question here of "presumed acceptance" is a different matter that I oppose as proposed. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are upper house elections ITNR?

[edit]

2025 Japanese House of Councillors election is a current nomination. This was originally tagged as ITNR, but I de-tagged it as ITNR because current practice does not classify upper house elections on their own as ITNR elections. WP:ITNELECTIONS does not make this distinction re: elections per se, just government changes. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not ITNR, it says changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's for changes of government; if a general election returns a hung parliament, then a new prime minister is determined at a much later date, we'd have two ITNR events: the general election per se, and the change in government. The argument is upper house elections are "general elections" as well (the third bullet point: "The results of general elections"). Howard the Duck (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the English Wikipedia, this election is not described or categorised as a general election. I don't know if the same concept applies in Japanese. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a problem for years now, but WP:ITNELECTIONS links to general election which does not have a satisfactory definition. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I would argue that elections to the most powerful house should be considered ITNR. Where both houses have equivalent levels of power (e.g. in the US - where elections anyway fall on the same day for both houses), then both should be covered. From what I can glean from House of Councillors, the Japanese upper house is weaker than the lower House, so this election shouldn't be covered under ITNR. Khuft (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with you, but this is nowhere codified in WP:ITNELECTIONS. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is. I added an elaboration as per Wikipedia:Be bold. Feel free to correct / amend as required. Khuft (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be a prick, but now we'd have to define which chamber/house has more power, or if they have equivalent power. We have delegated a similar thing on WP:ITNELECTIONS to List of sovereign states and List of current heads of state and government, so now we'd find to have a similar table on which chamber is more "powerful". Howard the Duck (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead if you want to delete it and go back to the previous status quo (that you complained about). In fairness, it's usually pretty obvious which chamber is the most powerful (typically the lower house). There will be very few cases where that's not the case. It's at least clearer than hinging the whole paragraph on "general elections" - a concept not really relevant for most countries. Khuft (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's quite obvious that the president of France is more powerful than the prime minister, but for other countries, this is not readily apparent. Again, I'm not really opposed to your edit, just that someone else will ask "where is this based on?" And this is based on the experience here that people questioned how List of current heads of state and government is sourced. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit only talks about legislative bodies, however. The president of France is of no relevance in this context. The elections to the French Assembly are ITNR (and have always been) but the indirect elections to the French Senate (the French upper house) are not, and have, to my knowledge, never been featured. The figure of French Prime Minister is not an ITNR figure - the French President can nominate whoever they want as PM (and the PM is a less powerful figure than the president) as long as the Assembly doesn't withdraw their confidence from that person. Khuft (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance is that it's a comparison of what is already stated on WP:ITNELECTIONS (the president of France being the relevant office where changes are ITNR) vs. which kinds of elections are ITNR, which is not exactly specified.
AFAIK, we've posted French Senate elections on that one time the Socialists got the majority; again, AFAIK, this is not a direct election unlike the House of Councilors but like the Bundesrat, so only the Japanese House of Councilors (among those three) has been nominated with some regularity here in ITN.
We've posted directly elected upper house elections before like in the aforementioned U.S. and Philippines, but those have elections on the same day as the lower house ones. We've rejected the 2024 Czech Senate election, of which you were prominent in the discussion, and was tagged as ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are different kinds of things, however. ITNELECTIONS states that both "general elections" and "changes to the heads of government" can be considered ITNR (these are separate points under that rubric). For France, this automatically means two different ITNR posts - Assembly elections and presidential elections (as the president holds executive power). For Germany, it only means one election is ITNR (elections to the Bundestag) - though given how long it nowadays takes for a new Chancellor to be nominated, the change in Chancellor has recently also been separately featured. Nothing says we can't also post other elections (e.g. upper house elections) as per the standard ITN process. I presume that the context in which the Czech Senate elections were discussed? These other elections can then be judged for notability on their merit that year. The 2025 Japanese upper house elections fall under that latter category for me - worth discussing as a normal ITN item, but not guaranteed to pass notability. Or am I missing something? Khuft (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone in ITN/C argued that the 2025 Japanese House of Councillors election is a "general election", thus falls under WP:ITNELECTIONS and is ITNR. I argued that common practice does not make this so and thus should be considered as an ordinary ITN blurb, but the counterargument to that is the way it is written is open to interpretation. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. And now I've added a clarification (based on, I think, general consensus on that clause) that should hopefully make things a bit clearer going forward? Khuft (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor request: make sure to tag RD blurbs

[edit]

While I have some reservations on the posting of Connie Francis as a blurb, I am not going to ask anything for that since it has been posted since I hadn't commented before it was posted. But in this case, never was that entry in ITNC tagged in the header as a Blurb nominee. I know the original nominator did not indicate it as a blurb, that came from discussion (which is fine) but no one added Blurb to the section header. It helps to capture that an RD blurb discussion is ongoing when looking at the TOC or on the watch list. Masem (t) 20:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did that in the case of Fauja Singh but not Connie Francis, when I added blurb text to their nomination templates. That was an oversight but note that this convention doesn't appear in Nomination steps or Headers and so is an informal custom. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know its not spelled out for how to use the header lines, and fully can understand overlooking it. Just that in general, tagging an ITNC as "RD" or "RD/Blurb" can be done by anyone if they see it lacking.
I'd like to see that added, since it does appear to be a standard non-controversial practice (where something tagged as RD/blurb gets posted as a blurb is a separate matter). Masem (t) 12:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add greatest boxers of their generation to ITNR

[edit]

Yes, the official rankings, awards and titles/tournaments in professional boxing are an unholy mess of special interests, rendering them pretty meaningless. With one exception. The undisputed champion of any weight class. But since they're as rare as hen's teeth, let's try and use something a little more frequent and probably more worthwhile, to determine boxing greatness as a matter of current events.

  • Propsed addition to ITNR: A professional boxer shall be deemed automatically worthy of posting, if after their latest bout, they are widely acclaimed by the vast majority of experts to be the "greatest boxer of their generation [in their weight class]". With emphasis on the words "widely" and "vast majority", and the specific phrasing "greatest of their generation". Not merely arguably either, but stated as a fact (as in, a settled expert consensus of opinion not realistically open for debate, such as the theory of evolution).

It's probably too late for Oleksandr Usyk to get his due recognition as one such titan of the sport. His nomination is stuck in some bizarre alternate universe where the concept of wide critical acclaim and the basic meaning of English phrases seems lost on a small minority. But hopefully we can prevent that outcome for any future boxers lucky enough to achieve this most highest of career achievements.

Hopefully they can be recognised as such at the very moment this occurs, which these days isn't likely to be any longer than 12 hours after their latest opponent hits the canvas and is counted out. Night Grinder (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "greatest of their generation" is a subjective claim and I prefer that we post objective news/events in ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you prefer it though? The simple objective fact that Usyk is only the second man to be a two-time undisputed heavyweight champion, isn't as significant as it sounds (while still being impressive). Both Usyk and Ali simply voluntarily gave up one of their titles, at the peak of their powers. And yet on the so called subjective claim that Usyk is the greatest heavyweight boxer of his generation, you will not find a single expert prepared to deny it. So all you're doing is denying great boxers the recognition their entire sport is giving them, in favour of an objective measure (if using undisputed champion) that recognises hardly any boxers, and (in hindsight) at entirely the wrong point in time. Some still doubted Usyk was the greatest, even after he became a unified champion the fist time around. Now it is settled. Why is that not good enough for you? I bet this wouldn't be tolerated if it was happening in tennis and meant someone like Roger Federer never got a single mention on the Main Page. The unanimous agreement of tennis experts would be perfectly acceptable then, I am quite sure. Night Grinder (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason this is discouraged is that Wikipedia is supposed to be "not promotional" (WP:PROMOTION). Whether this is true in practice or not, and what constitutes promotion can be debated, but in my opinion a blurb about "the greatest boxer of his generation" is promotional, and not objective, compared to a blurb simply stating that "xyz won the undisputed title" or "xyz won abc boxing match". I do not think that ITN would post a similar blurb for other sports, including tennis or golf, etc. Natg 19 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We would rather have a metric like with sumo wrestlers, some official title recognized by the sports organization committee, that indicates the top of their class. Simply winning a X-weight title isn't sufficient here, even if it's multiple times. That said, someone being the second to have won two heavyweights is at least a good ITNC since it's rare. Masem (t) 18:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undisputed heavyweight champion is recognised by all the organisations whose world titles it unifies. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about tbh. The rare thing in boxing is to unify the cruiserweight division and then do the same at heavyweight. It'a as rare as being compared to Muhammad Ali when considering who is the greatest boxer of all time. It's as rare as being praised as both a skilled fighter and an all round good man who lets his fists do the talkng, in a division that features vile clowns like Tyson Fury and blowhards like Anthony Joshua. That's the achievement of Usyk. The fact he is a two-time undisputed heavyweight champion, sharing that feat only with Ali, is almost trivia by comparison. But it is at least a cool sounding objective factual feat. So I phrased it that way for the muggles, knowing fine well that there would be ridiculous objections to simply saying he had become the greatest heavyweight boxer of his generation, even though literally nobody in boxing is disputing that. Night Grinder (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add, we need a news event, not some assessment of sources that a person qualifies. Winning a fight is an event but as noted above not every major title fight is appropriate for ITNR but still can be nominated as ITNC. Masem (t) 19:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a news event, a fight result. The proposal makes it pretty clear that for the purposes of ITNR you are only assessing the flood of coverage in the immediate aftermath of the fight. Night Grinder (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations: 1) We've had a spate of accounts recently that post mainly or exclusively to ITN about one pet topic, and have strong tendencies towards WP:BLUDGEON. 2) I do think Usyk's achievement was newsworthy and should have been posted. 3) But the 'two times undisputed champion' thing is a bit of a red herring. A champion who gains the title once, and then successfully defends it for a long period, is at least as successful as one who gains it, loses it, and then gains it again. Personally I think the emergence of an undisputed world heavyweight champion should be treated as a newsworthy event (arguably ITNR) in the same way that a new yokozuna is in sumo. 4) However, I'm not a close follower of boxing, and would be interested to hear from people who are more familiar with it as to the reasonableness of treating the heavyweight class as the pre-eminent standard. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's only been one undisputed heavyweight champion since 2000, and his name is Oleksandr Usyk, so you're not really adding much here. Not that it matters, this whole place is a joke. There is an absolute tidal wave of subjectivity in the nomination for Ozzie Osborne. Boxers are getting screwed over both ways it seems, with neither objective or subjective importance being recognised by a process that clearly accepts both when it suits. Why? Perhaps it's racism, Usyk is a foreigner after all. I don't know how else to explain it. Night Grinder (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to support your nomination here, but your attitude isn't helping. You describe Usyk as 'a foreigner', but foreign to whom? This is an international project, and I myself live in a highly diverse city with a large Ukrainian population. I'm increasingly convinced that we absolutely should make undisputed boxing champions an ITNR item just like yokozuna are, and I'd welcome the expertise of someone knowledgeable in the subject matter - but you have chosen to attack me instead. I'm sincerely interested in your views on my point 4 - please take this in the spirit it's intended. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had boxing in ITNR long ago, stating "Major title fights that receive significant coverage, to be judged case by case;" I had this removed because it was not helpful at all, ITNR-wise. Since then, there had been a handful of boxing fights, mostly Manny Pacquiao ones. I remember Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao was not posted due to massive opposition, but for some reason Pacquiao's next fight vs. a white European (Ricky Hatton vs. Manny Pacquiao) did. Incredibly, Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao was almost not posted, because of still massive opposiition. TBH, it's been years since the last boxing fight was posted here, yet we still continue to post rugby, Gaelic football and handball(?) (Man, I missed when he had hurling as the punching bag to point out the absurdities in the ITNR list.)

This suggestion won't help, because just as the original, there's no set rule on who is the "greatest boxers of their generation". Boxing has as many organizing bodies as you do have fingers and toes, and even more championships than you do have bones on all of your fingers. We may post a boxing fight in the future, and Usyk's is the best opportunity for one this year, but there'd always be stiff opposition to this sport on these parts. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just proposed a set rule. That's its sole purpose. The only boxers who would ever get listed under ITNR, are the ones where there's no disagreement among recognised experts. Why do people here think they know better than the entire boxing world, which includes all those title awarding organisations, when it comes to the basic and obvious fact that a fighter has reached the highest level possible in the sport? You can come to that conclusion using subjective means, if the performance is so clear, the distance to challengers so great. It's been done for Usyk. Jesus H. Christ, not even the promoters of the one, possibly two, boxers who are even said to have a chance against Usyk in the one, possibly two fights he will do before retiring, is disputing that Usyk is the greatest of a generation. If they did dispute it, they would be seen as the evolution deniers of boxing. In the same way Tyson Fury is now a total laughing stock for trying to argue he won both his fights against Usyk. Night Grinder (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My Google skills are top notch, but Googling "greatest boxers of this generation" returns lists of "Top 10 boxers in the 21st century". The ESPN list does not Usyk, but he's on another list of the top 10 heavyweight boxers of the 21st century. Now, we can argue all day who's list is more credible, and that day would stretch into weeks until the story has become stale. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would only take seconds actually. As per the nomination, Usyk became the greatest heavyweight boxer of his generation on the night of 18th July 2025, but your ESPN list is dated 25th July 2024. And even if it was a current list, as even the most ignorant of boxing person would surely know, if they wanted to partake in such a debate, there is a very big difference between a list titled "Top 10 boxers in the 21st century", and one titled "Top 10 heavyweight boxers in the 21st century". The only way I can see it taking 24 hours, and on and on until it became moot, was if the people involved were acting in bad faith or were just plain stupid. Oh. So maybe you're right? Night Grinder (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITNR addition, but only because Boxing's uniquely fractured governance system makes it impossible to be objective with an ITNR rule. What weight classes/belts would go into a hypothetical "unification makes front page" rule, and how would you select them? What if a popular champion loses it because a sketchy sanctioning body wants their fee and he won't pay up even though he's undefeated in the ring? Many possible edge cases. I disagree with the apparent consensus that Usyk's unification will not make it onto ITN, it really should, but an ITNR rule won't fix this. Omnifalcon (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Boxing is not uniquely fractured. ITN/R has five forms of football and two forms of rugby (which are forms of football too). Other sports such as motorsport are quite fractured too.
Note that the Olympic form of boxing is amateur boxing and that seems somewhat fractured too. Weightlifting seems rather similar in that there's a structure for the Olympics and then a variety of professional and semi-professional forms.
Andrew🐉(talk) 06:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? The types of football and rugby are different sports so therefore the champions of each competition are unique. Boxing has the issue in that you can (and usually do) have more than one champion in a weight division at the same time. Black Kite (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the proposal speaks of a generation. We would need to be able to define a generation. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this suggestion and propose a speedy close per WP:DENY as the user is a blocked sock. If someone wants to propose a more objective proposal for this, then feel free to do so, but this sock's trainwreck isn't going anywhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive for older BLPs

[edit]

I'm not sure where would be best to bring this up, but we should have a drive to improve older BLPs. I'm tired of famous people not being posted because the article has sourcing issues. If we fix those issues ahead of time, we won't have this issue anymore. I'd like to know if people would be interested in participating in a drive like that. I don't know how to set up an event like this, so I would also appreciate input from anyone with experience running improvement drives. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also really like this idea, but I also wouldn't know how to set up an event like that. Perhaps WP:BIOG project members would be interested participating? New Pages Patrol and Articles for Creation occasionally do their own drives, I wonder if the event organizers at those projects would be able to assist with setting this up. Not entirely sure how it would work, though. It's easier to quantify contributions when it's something like reviewing new/draft articles with a tool. Regardless of how the drive works, I think it would be good to compile a list of BLP articles about elderly people who are highly influential, at the top of their field, etc. and make note of any issues we find that would hold these pages back from being posted, e.g. significant amounts of unsourced material.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of living centenarians isn't a bad starting point (it's a list of notable people as opposed to List of oldest living people which is of the oldest living people) - Dumelow (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Far better point would be starting with the oldest actors, musicians, writers, etc., any type of person with a bibliography or equivalent list, to make sure those are properly sourced. These are the ones that most commonly fail any type of quality check for RD because these bibliography/etc. lists are unsourced. Masem (t) 12:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea. It would be nice for ITN to be more proactive about this kind of thing. @Dr. Blofeld, the coordinator of the stub expansion drives, might be able to offer advice on setting up this kind of event. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea and would be happy to set something up, but you'd have to find a prize fund from somewhere, the stub contest sponsor isn't interested in biographies I don't think. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Any tips for how to go about finding a sponsor? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No idea! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The simplest approach is to improve articles when they are nominated. ITN has too many back-seat drivers who raise objections but don't do anything about them.
But if you want to be more proactive then focus on the vital article lists such as WP:VAPEOPLE. These are the most famous cases and improvement work is immediately useful as they are usually high traffic while they are alive too.
Andrew🐉(talk) 22:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Define "general elections" for the purpose of ITNELECTIONS

[edit]

Request your consideration to modify WP:ITNELECTIONS as bolded:

The results of general elections (an election to replace the entirety of a national legislative body) in: GreatCaesarsGhost 14:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - This would mean that US and UK elections were never reported, because the legislature includes (respectively) the Senate and the House of Lords, and the Senate is never elected all in one block, and the majority of the House of Lords isn't elected at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already added a qualification to that paragraph - if people are fine with that one, no need for further amendments. Also, the point is not whether the "entirety" of a national legislative body are replaced, but rather which legislative body (where there are more than one) is the most important one. Khuft (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As long as it is a open public vote for one or more of the major houses of the nation's legislature, that should qualify. Masem (t) 19:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As our article General election points out, that's not how "general election" is defined in the US, where it means the ordinary election for an office that takes place after the party nominating process (primaries, caucuses, or conventions). Jahaza (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]