Template talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for general discussions for In the news.


In the news
Criteria and procedures
Suggestions
Discussion
Recurring items
Death criteria debate
Current events portal

This is the discussion page for the In the news section of the Main Page, referred to as ITN. If you are new to ITN, please read the criteria and procedures that guide ITN and its updates. The most important thing to remember is that ITN does not act as a newspaper or an obituary; it provides links to encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect important current events, and that have a reasonable amount of information on the topic.

[edit] Quick guide

Serena Williams

Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

view - page history - related changes - Edit (admins only) - Suggestions

If you have already read the criteria page, here is the quick guide:

  • For an item to appear on ITN, a relevant article must be updated and a blurb added to Portal:Current events or one of its subpages.
  • The event has to be important enough to merit updating the article and should be of international import, or at least interest.
  • If you are not an admin, have updated an article with an item that you feel is of international significance and put a blurb on Current events, suggest the item at the candidates page.
  • If you are an admin, familiarize yourself with both the Criteria and Admin guidelines. In particular, please pay close attention to the procedure for images.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Some numbers

Per Potatoswatter, I checked out some article traffic statistics on stats.grok.se for June. Here's what I found:

Yves Leterme (Belgian prime minister) -- 4,083 Miss Universe -- 62,223

Makemake -- 279

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann -- 7,182 Madeleine McCann (redirect) -- 26,091

Man Booker Prize -- 7,521 Booker Prize (redirect) -- 10,495

American Idol -- 211,079

Zimbabwean dollar -- 32,792 Miley Cyrus -- 713,556

Clearly the somewhat geeky selections of ITN don't reflect what many people are interested in. That's fine if we're aiming at a particular demographic, but not if we want to be of more use to Wikipedia readers at large. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See I told ya we should've posted Miley's topless shoot... but in the end, ITN is not a news service. And if we're a news service, it'll be mostly serious/educational news that'll get in. If something really, really (emphasis on the two reallys) bad happens to Miley then probably that's the only time she'd be posted. --Howard the Duck 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, UAAP Season 71 had more views (10,754) than 2008 Open Championship (1,219) but there's absolutely no chance in hell the UAAP will ever be posted unless I suddenly have admin powers and wheel war for the next week. --Howard the Duck 14:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)We don't make geeky selections. We make selections based on how well updated an article is to reflect something current of international importance or interest. Also I suppose some of the comparisons are unfair. For example, Zimbabwe dollar has many more page views, than, for example, Bosnia and Herzegovina konvertibilna marka with 1,825 views. Or Libyan dinar with 1,614. Japanese yen, is closer, with 33,075 views in June. Another issue with this computing. How many views does Tropical_Storm_Dolly_(2008) have in June? 0. It can certainly be said that there is more interest than that in something like this.
ITN, rather, draws interest to updated articles and encourages others to do so. See this interest at 1, 2, or 3.
The 2008 NBA Finals, I'd hazard a guess that it received the most views, but still look. Cheers, SpencerT♦C 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just found this out. "Makemake_(dwarf_planet) has been viewed 0 times in 200806" The article didn't even exist. SpencerT♦C 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
But it seems that the "how well an article is updated" criterion is not the primary one used in WP:ITN/C discussions. Instead, it seems to be some unwritten code describing what types of entries are appropriate for ITN: national elections, space events, natural disasters and so on. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Plus WP:ITNSPORTS. 119.95.21.132 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I would think the choice is made due to both international and historical significance. Miley Cyrus will be forgotten by most, whereas Dwarf planets can be historically significant. Rough example but you get my drift. Wikipedia is unique (in my opinion) that it is a more accessable encyclopedia than the hard-copy replica and is also a lot more up-to-date and therefor flash-in-the-pan news is available here but in the end the core value of wiki as I see it, is it's encyclopedic content. Lympathy Talk 13:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What's your point? Do you want us to put up the American Idol winner? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, they put up the Eurovision stuff, so... --Howard the Duck 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Eurovision slips in as a multinational competition. I'll give only three chances to guess which nation American Idol is specific to. - BanyanTree 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Screw that. The AI Finale was broadcast live on our country, compare that to the 2006 World Cup that made it to cable 6 months after it was played. It could've very well met the "international interest criterion. But hey, since it's America and they love doing it by themselves Euros think it is not "multinational enough."
Trying to argue that the most watched sporting event in the world (something that a ninth of the entire population of the planet watched) isn't as notable as American Idol is futile. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't I was trying to say. I'm saying that if the rules were followed the AI finale has a shot of being posted at ITN; the World Cup comparison was to illustrate some people or nations plainly don't care. --Howard the Duck 11:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the final of the World Cup has just been pwned by an Olympic basketball preliminary round game. --Howard the Duck 19:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim coming from FIBA should automatically be treated with care and is opposed by at least one other apparently neutral source [1] (not an RS but the sources it links to seem better). While I appreciate the 715? million figure for the 2006 Final came from FIFA, I didn't find any sources conflicting that it had the biggest audience whatever the actual number. Note that according to this source [2], the US audience for the 2006 Final was higher then the US audience for the event that supposedly got a total audience of 1 billion. According to this source, the 2004 Asian Cup Final and Semifinal had a significantly higher Chinese audience then the event that supposedly got a total audience of 1 billion[3] and the 2002 World Cup had a Chinese audience about equal to the event that supposedly got a total audience of 1 billion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting thing, according to this source [4] it wasn't even the largest Chinese audience for the Olympics as of 12th August! Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Plus the fact that David Cook is on pop radio all day on our place. Eurovision? Zip. --Howard the Duck 03:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Following claims to international fame or "obvious facts" amounts to BS. With only anecdotes and no WP:RS or data, it's only possible to bicker. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason I didn't post such numbers myself was that June was too long ago. Leterme, Miss Universe, Makemake, and especially new Z$ developments are all July stories. Makemake had a quite respectable showing for a highly technical software development tool, an obscure deity, and a misspelled song name. If you look at stats for Leterme's election in March, he had quite a peak of pageviews, although that's also partly due to ITN. That's why my suggestion is to implement some real-time statistics gathering to see what's popular. Simply making hour-by-hour pageview info available at ITN/C would encourage super-timely development and scrutiny of headline articles. But there needs to be a new database outlet. Trying to use hindsight on biased data won't teach us anything. (Although trying to claim you have an "international perspective" and that you know Belgium is "important" is much sillier. Just admit you're ignorant like everyone else—the knowledge doesn't exist!) Potatoswatter (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we don't have as much news about Miley Cyrus, because most of it gets removed from Portal:Current Events (and subpages), which is where we get our ideas. And what appears on P:CE? National elections, space events, natural disasters, and so on. (Political events, especially). Let's see a sampling for July 23: Prime Minister resignation, Military stuff in Nigeria, EU, WTO, and a hurricane. Mostly what was said above. SpencerT♦C 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you responding to me? What do you think of my suggestion or my criticism? You don't know whether Cyrus is more popular than any science topic because you don't have the data. I'm suggesting that data be made available. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If I might offer an observation, Potatoswatter appears to assume that items that are more popular should be more likely to be posted on ITN. Since that is not an assumption written into the guidelines of ITN, or assumed by anyone else in the discussion as far as I can tell, people seem to be talking past each other. Potatoswatter needs to make a convincing argument that ITN should reflect popular interest, rather than whatever he thinks it does now, before moving on to arguing about how we should measure popularity. - BanyanTree 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just reacting to the "Government collapse vs. beauty pageant" topic, which was introduced with "but would most readers agree?" So the notion isn't my contribution, quantifying it is. I don't think ITN reflects anything non-random now, but I do think popular interest should correlate well with anything on the main page. ITN purely as a showcase of newly-updated articles might now be outdated, since updates generally tend to be timely with WP's now-astronomical popularity. Perhaps if additional constraints were added to the existing ones, the system would be better constrained, hence less margin to attribute the final product to personal biases. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer an earlier question, my point was just to get some clarification as to what kind of thing should go on ITN to avoid future confrontation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the world has its sights set on ITN so every entry about USA will be highly scrutinized to avoid U.S. bias. --Howard the Duck 04:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that articles with international significance should be preferred to national significance, regardless of visit count. For example, a World Cup is more important to this section than the winner of a Big Brother Lympathy Talk 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, but I don't think there really has been any confrontation. It's pretty much a given that the top five news stories in the world at any given moment aren't going to include the words "Miley" or "Cyrus". I think the type of stories that go on ITN at the moment are absolutely fine. As a section of an encyclopaedia, things with more lasting significance should be given preference. Hence we should probably be more in line with the BBC News at Ten than Entertainment Tonight. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solzhenitsyn

There is no justification for this addition. His death was not unexpected, and the article only has a couple new sentences regarding the event. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-05 13:07Z

[edit] Usain Bolt

Suggested text:

Usain Bolt of Jamaica wins Olympic gold medals in the 100-metre and 200-metre sprints, setting new world records of 9.69 of and 19.30 seconds.

Not sure how the date works, though (August 20? August 16?) Thoughts? Neıl ☄ 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Mention it on candidate page and tag it August 20. --Tone 14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Done, and Nishkid has copyedited it to actually make sense. Neıl ☄ 14:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think more should be added: he is the first sprinter since Don Quarrie (1976) to hold both 100 and 200 metres world records simultaneously and the first since the introduction of electronic timing. Nergaal (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording is quite long as it is...and the mention would only be adding more trivia. SpencerT♦C 11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's enough as it is. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 200-metres vs 200 metres

  • Can the in the news article be changed to read without the "-" between 200-metres? The whole article uses the "200 metres" format and editors have come to the article removing them wholesale. Please read HERE for the wiki guidelines. Thank you. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanair flight: number of deaths

At least 153 people have died. Source: Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep radio news, 11:00 pm Belgian time. Belgian man (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russia's souring relations with the West

I think we are missing a bigger story with potentially much more serious ramifications than any of the other stories currently making our news headlines section if we do not see a way to include this issue. __meco (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, shouldn't we have something about Russia halting all military co-operation with Nato following the organisation's condemnation of the invasion of Georgia? BBC News 82.39.33.148 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The first question is, do we have an updated article? If not, thie discussion is going nowhere Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Foreign relations of Russia for example doesn't mention anything. 2008 South Ossetia war has nothing concrete that I can see. This is perhaps not surprising since although you may be right about the ramifications, it's a bit crystall ballsy. All you can say is "many people think it's going to have a significant effect on Russian's relations with the West" which is not even close to be worth and ITN entry. Looking back at it from 10 years, you could say "this is the moment when whatever happened" but that's with the benefit of hindsight. It's something you can cover in a news article perhaps, but probably not something you can cover well in an encyclopaedia. I'm not even sure how you'd word the ITN entry... Remember there's nothing wrong with us missing the big "news" story because as an encylopaedia we work best looking back with hindsight and ITN is not about the news. It's good if we have up to date articles which will let the astute reader find out about what's going on and guess what's going to happen, but we can't direct the reader to articles because this may be a big moment in history. If we have something concrete to mention like Russia halting cooperation with Nato then maybe but we still have to make sure it itself is significant (i.e. we can't include it because we think it's symbolic of a wider problem) and be careful to be NPOV about it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, we do have something concrete, and Russia has declared it is halting cooperation with Nato (Novosti, World Politics Review). This is no prediction on what will happen. It has happened. Also, Russia had threatened Poland with use of nuclear weapons over the deployment of the missile shield. Of course, the Foreign relations of Russia article needs to be updated with this, but then this should go in the ITN section. __meco (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The key question is 'is Russia halting cooperation with Nato' ITN material? Remember this has to stand on it's own, not because it's symbolic of anything else. In any case, it's irrelevant until and unless the article is updated. Also, I don't think 'Russia threatens Poland with the use of nuclear weapons' is a good ITN item. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usain Bolt relay

How come it doesn't include that he was a part of the 4x100m relay winning gold and breaking the world record?--EZ1234 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New items may be suggested at WP:ITN/C. SpencerT♦C 14:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama's VP

I'm not sure whether this is the place to report it or not, but in the current version of this news item, Obama's first name is misspelled. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that it's been corrected now. Even if the news piece itself is based on speculation.Qqqqqq (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not -- the AP reported it an hour ago, and CNN and MSNBC have reported that they have independent confirmation of it. Obama will be announcing it officially tomorrow morning by text message. Raul654 (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I say we wait until Obama makes it official. IIRC, Biden claimed a few days ago that he was ruled out as Obama's VP. What happened to that? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, doesn't this seem a bit too US-centric? It's a candidate's vice presidential selection! We don't have VP selections for any other country's presidential candidates. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The US is the sole superpower in the world and this campaign has been followed closely by many countries' mass media. That said, if ITN convention isn't to include this, I'd reject it. The convention will be up next week anyway. Does anybody know for sure what the ITN convention is here?--chaser - t 05:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I was perfectly content with covering Obama's victory as the presumptive Democratic candidate on ITN. But, his vice president selection? It seems like we're pushing it a bit, in my opinion. There have been numerous complaints of US-centrism on ITN in the past, and I think adding the VP selection is just going to open the floodgates from disapproving editors. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to waiting a few hours until it's officially announced. On the other hand, the main criticism of ITN is *not* that it's too US centric - it's that it isn't updated often enough (the Lugo problem). And more to the point - let's ask ourselves - what is going to be a front-page story in every major newspaper in the world tomorrow or Sunday? Usain Bolt winning two gold medals, or Joe Biden being selected as the VP pick? Raul654 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this bit want to address some points... From what I've seen complaints are about equal 'it's too US centric' and 'it's not updated often enough' when it comes to ITN and I expect if we start allowing a large number of US centric items we don't currently because it's not updated enough, things will just get worse. Also, remember it doesn't really matter what the top new story is because ITN is not about the news (remember this is not wikinews). As it stands, whatever the merits of the item, I don't see a significant update so IMHO this was added to early if it should be added at all. BTW, whatever the case for this item I've seen an almost consensus even from those who argue we don't cover the US elections enough on ITN not to include either the Republican or Democractic conventions, baring anything unexpected happening Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Modern political conventions are (by design) the most heavily scripted events on earth. Nothing surprising happens at them (except possibly for the protestors outside). Nothing that happens at a convention is remotely newsworthy. The announceent of the VP, however, is both newsworthy and far from predictable. Raul654 (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced it. This is now getting major media coverage as the top story in NYT, Wash. Post, The Times, La Repubblica (it), Spiegel (de), and secondary story on Times of India. Clearly ITN material.--chaser - t 06:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC) And al Jazeera, Le Figaro, Le Monde, etc. It would be embarrassing for Wikipedia not to include this at this point.--chaser - t 06:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Confirmed by campaign [5].--chaser - t 06:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though it's probably very obvious to us, there is no mention (or link to the article) of the United States presidential election, 2008 or the United States to provide context for this information. Somebody might be reading this thinking "running mate for what?". BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 07:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should be up, since the article (Joe Biden) has now been updated and the updates sourced. I know that we had previously agreed to not include news of the conventions, but strictly speaking this isn't about the convention, and that was before the ITN system got modified to induce more updates. Random89 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We barely even cover candidate announcements for elections elsewhere in the world for ITN. I find it silly that a non-electable position being chosen by a Presidential candidate to be too far down the chain for a short list of important World News items. I'm sure the United States presidential election is of concern to a good portion of the world, but I don't think many of them give a damn about who the candidates choose as their vice presidents. The status of the article has zero to do with whether or not it belongs on ITN. The359 (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind you, when we were discussing the US elections before, we decided not to put every new thing on ITN, such as Obama/Hillary wins in XY state, just when the nominations are known. Now, this is the announcment of running mate, that is not even an electable position. So according to the previous agreement it shouldn't go up at all. And please, keep your discussions centralized at WP:ITN/C. --Tone 10:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The office of VP not an electable position? Both of you misunderstand. As for the item going up, it meets all ITN critera, and comparing a VP choice to the winning of a primary state is a bit silly. Russeasby (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I am just saying that we usually have just one post per elections, eventually two for runoff cases. For US presidential elections, this is at least 3rd post already and even more will follow if it goes this way. US biase? Otherwise, the other requirements are fulfilled, no oppose to that. --Tone 13:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I see and understand your point. But I disagree. This argument has been made many times already. But I do not think anyone can deny, in the world as it stands today, the US elections are of far more international importance then most other elections. The US being the sole superpower (or primary bully if you see it that way), with the issues in the middle east and the US being the primary external catalyst there, the US elections are of extream importance to everyone and can affect the lives of most people alive today. You wont find the newest PM of most european nations on the front page of every newspaper internationally, much less his/her secondary. But you surely will find the US presidental candidate AND his choice for VP there. Its not US bias, its simply of extream importance to most of the world. Barring some insane incident, I cant see any reason why the US elections will mar ITN again until the general election, McCains VP choice is far less of a story internationally then Obamas is (and thats not my liberal bias, hang out outside the US and you easily see who gets more press). Russeasby (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I've decided not to oppose this but I should point out it will never be accepted if we post this but don't post McCain's VP choice. It's an all or nothing here and it appears we're posting McCain's VP choice. Also I think the difference between this and most other election results is that is has no real long lasting significance. I can't remember who Al Gore's VP candidate was in 2000 nor am I sure who was John Kerry's VP choice in 2004 (was it Edwards?). Heck I don't even no who challenged Clinton in 1996. (Indeed probably the main reason I remember Gore is because of the extremely dubious going-ons in Florida and because he maintained a high profile afterwards. And Kerry because it's recent and Bush is such a wackjob.) Nor do I really care... They lost, so they are a tiny footnote in history, more trivia then anything. Yes people take an interest now, but not in the future. I'm sure this applies to a lot of the world. Most other things have much more long lasting historical significance. Who wins the election i.e leads the country for the next however many years definitely has great historical significance, but who the candidates are, not so much, who the vice presidental candidates are, even less. The election of a new leader for some other coutntry, even a small one like Norway/Suriname however does have long lasting historical significance (the 'winner' of a first round requiring a runoff far less so). The same with the "messiah" whoever she is, coming to Chicago, Kansas being wiped out by an asteroid, a plane crashing killing 153 million people, someone winning a record 8 Olympics medals in one Olympics etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did this even go up? The update to Biden's article doesn't meet the minimum standards established at WP:ITNMP. SpencerT♦C 14:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with you there. "[u]pdates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient...." - Mark 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not removing this item again but consider ti anyway. WP is not a news service and focus articles must be sufficiently updated. Regarding the above comment, McCain's VP choice is of exactly same importance as Obama's, regardles of the media coverage. So either include both or none (I prefer none and just have an item about the elections at the very day of the elections.) --Tone 14:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't be having an inclusion debate if the article firstly doesn't meet the standards that are set out. And also, one of the two refs in the three-sentence paragraph is a blog link. SpencerT♦C 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added significantly to that section. This should now meet ITN's subjective standard of five sentences with a couple of refs.--chaser - t 15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, SpencerT♦C 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me as well. --Tone 15:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] picture suggestion

new exclusive Wikipedia photo :-)
new exclusive Wikipedia photo :-)

I just returned from Springfield, where I had the pleasure to witness the Obama-Biden rally. I too a few pictures, and this is the one I would like to suggest to illustrate the news item. It still is a wikipedia exclusive and I think it turned out pretty well. --Dschwen 23:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US-centric

Does this really meet ITN criteria or is it just another example of Wikipedia being US-centric?

I'm convinced that if the messiah were to make his appearance in Chicago or a comet wiped out Kansas City, some of our friends would want to keep it off ITN as too "US-centric." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Making extremely dumb claims, clearly in opposition to all previous history is not going to get you anywhere. (Yes I know this is rude, but ludicrious claims deserve such a response) Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Breaking news...an ignorant poster declares rediculous defence of valid criticisms. Don't start getting alarmist, be aware that there will be discussions from all points of view. I'm sure many US users would also agree that wiki can sometimes get US-centric but debate is the best form of resolution. Lympathy Talk 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Please people, have a sense of humor. And I think it's fairly accurate that suggestions of U.S. events regularly get criticized as not international enough. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest using an emoticon (and perhaps elaborating in a more grounded manner) in the future. I couldn't tell whether your message was intended to be humorous or mean-spirited (and I'm American). —David Levy 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, sorry about that :). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions of all events only affecting one country get criticised as not being international enough. I'm sick and tired of people pretending that the US is the only one who suffers here. I think it's more likely by far there will be criticism if a meteor knocks out Shanghai/Mumbai that it's just China/India then there will be criticism if a meteor knocks out Detroit or whatevr example you gave. And whether you like it or not, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE BY FAR WILL NOT OPPOSE AN ITEM IF A METEOR TAKES OUT DETROIT OR THE MESSIAH (whoever the hell that is) SHOWS UP IN LOS ANGELES AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULD BOTHER DISCUSSING. Making dumb claims in discussions then passing it off as humour doesn't cut it either. It appears to me that there was some good discussion here and you basically either couldn't add anything useful but wanted to say something anyway or perhaps just wanted to play the poor hard-done by American card. Whatever the case, dumb suggestions in serious discussions are usually unwelcome. Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plane crash in Kyrgyzstan

I propose that this be added to ITN as soon as possible. —Animum (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please post your proposal (along with a link to the relevant Wikipedia article that has been written or substantially updated) on the candidates page. —David Levy 18:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yo? ossetia independence?

Why isn't it on the mainpage? this is as big if not worse than Kosovo's... mainpage pls! Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's on the mainpage now, but consider suggesting new items at WP:ITN/C. SpencerT♦C 02:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Won't this ever get posted? I know the U.S. team won but you can't argue U.S. biaz on this item. –Howard the Duck 03:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Too late (though I'd have included it) 5:15 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It could still be added on the closing ceremonies item (third on the list). –Howard the Duck 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
What would we tell the people wanting the other 27 sports included on ITN?--chaser - t 04:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It isn't good enough for ITN? Take note on CNN International they even had an update while the USA-Argentina semifinal was ongoing (that's why I stopped watching the delayed telecast). Other team sports? Nada. Plus, are we really adding the results of Modern pentathlon at the 2008 Summer Olympics? –Howard the Duck 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Among team sports in the Olympics, only basketball has sent their top players. Other team sports in the Olympics that may have sent their "A" teams (handball, softball, field hockey, etc.) aren't found at WP:ITNSPORTS. Football was mostly an under-23 event and baseball didn't feature MLB players. Can't comment on individual sports, although ITN has featured record breaking performances from both Phelps (which was accused of U.S. biaz) and Bolt (not accused of Jamaican bias). –Howard the Duck 04:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the Basketball gold medal was important. I have no problem with Bolt or Phelps as both were significant achievements. Lympathy Talk 09:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's just say Olympic basketball is the pinnacle of national team competition. In fact, all sports in the Olympics save for football (soccer) are the pinnacles of their competition. The only difference is that basketball is the one most widely followed among the team sports. –Howard the Duck 10:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Plus this is on WP:ITNSPORTS. I don't understand why this won't go up. –Howard the Duck 10:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The most widely followed sport as we all know is football. Granted the Olympics is not the highest level due to age restrictions. However your decision that Basketball should then be considered the next most widely followed team sport in the Olympics is very naive. Both Field Hockey (est. 2 billion viewers/players) and Volleyball (est. 1 billion viewers/players) are more than double the popularity of Basketball (est. 400-500 million viewers/players). My point is not to dismiss the achievement of the Basketball gold medal but to put it in perspective. There are multiple sports that should theoretically be placed on ITN but we must realise that at Olympics time a better compromise is the use of the 2008 Olympic Highlights to include all the gold medals and recognise all these outstanding achievements. Lympathy Talk 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that [field] hockey is not even at WP:ITNSPORTS means those 2 billion players are located in one part of the world; and are the volleyball and field hockey events even extensively reported elsewhere? What was the last time you saw volleyball and field hockey games reported on CNN World Sport sans the Olympics? Zip. Plus those 450 million basketball players are "competition and grassroots level", which means I'm not included since I don't play competively. Plus there are only 116 field hockey national associations. Basketball? 213. Even more than the football associations, LOL.
And heck, the NBA Finals made it and the Olympics is even more important. –Howard the Duck 06:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point. I love Basketball and the gold is significant and I'm happy with the NBA Finals being on ITN because it is a once off each year. I just think that during the Olympics, all gold medals are significant and it is silly clogging up the ITN with various medals unless something unique was achieved. Lympathy Talk 12:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I know this probably doesn't matter any more, but this probably should have gone up. The event was not `unique`, but in other years we would have included the FIBA world championships, but it was decided at WP:ITNSPORTS that the olympics gold superseded that. Ah well, theres always london... Random89 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I do understand the problem though; if this wasn't held at the Olympics and/or Calderon played that caused the defeat of the U.S. this would've made it. But alas, too many Olympic articles made this a tough sell, despite the international attention given to this tourney as compared to the other team sports. –Howard the Duck 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
agreed Lympathy Talk 15:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
So what now? We'd leave the Olympics, the #1 event of basketball? But it can be argued that the NBA season is more tightly contested since the teams are deeper (as compared to world national team events) so the NBA Finals result can be posted, but try explaining that to the Euros; it's like explaining illegal defense to a kid. "It's a U.S. game, not international enough. U.S. biaz! Blah blah blah." –Howard the Duck 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor change request

{{editprotected}} Will an admin please change the link for Russia's bit from International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, since the former link is only a redirect to the latter? Thanks! Glacier Wolf 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK backlog needs ITN reformatting assistance

Can you guys lengthen your section by leaving stories on for a longer period of time. WP:DYK is having a backlog problem and needs more space without causing an imbalance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DNC

Shouldn't we say that Obama and Biden have been officially nominated as Democratic candidates for president and vice president? john k (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How about "Barack Obama becomes the first African-American to be nominated for the United States Presidency" Lympathy Talk 15:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not unexpected, and as a pure procedural issue it doesn't strike me as news of world interest. We've already had more US election stories than are typical of elections in other countries (and I'm sure there are quite a few left to come), but the official nomination is one that I think it makes sense to skip. Dragons flight (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think the current one deserves to be news. Lympathy Talk 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
But we have a thing about Biden. If we're going to have anything about the election, it should be the official nominations, not the Biden pick, which is old news. john k (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That was added when Biden was selected (which was less than a week ago), and has worked it's way down the ITN list as new topics have been selected (at a rate of roughly 1 per day). Once a few more items are chosen it will be pushed off. It's no more stale than other things on ITN tend to be. Dragons flight (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd add that there are reasons besides Americo-centrism to have more items about a U.S. presidential election than, say, a Bulgarian one, or even a British or French one. Obviously, the results of the U.S. election have a lot more effect on other countries than do those in most countries. Beyond that, most other countries don't have election campaigns that last two years, so obviously there's considerably more opportunity for US election stories than those of other countries in "In the news". john k (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
We agreed that US elections are of high importance. Therefore we aer including more ITN posts than for other countries. But we don't want to have too many of them, ITN is in its core not a news service and should feature articles that have been considerably updated. We had Obama winning the primaries and the same for McCain, we had Obama choosing Biden (in the same manner it would be appropriate to include McCain's running mate to be neutral) and if there are no huge scandals, the next election blurb will probably be the elections themselves. This is already 5 or 6 times more attention than another elections get and this is more than enough. --Tone 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be appropriate to replace the current Biden item with one noting that Obama accepts the nomination? It really is a historic moment, a major American party choosing an African-American as its candidate. I think it merits inclusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

{{editprotected}} Can we use Image:Gustavat1Landfall08.jpg for the top story? Thanks, SpencerT♦C 22:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 23:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, SpencerT♦C 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palin???

This is not the USA portal so would someone please remove the bit about McCain/Palin. I've never seen this sort of stuff put on when we're talking about other countries. There is definately way too much USA centered stuff on ITN. ChrisDHDR 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of bitching and moaning, please read the section above entitled "Obama's VP"
Note: The above comment was added by Five Fifteen (talk · contribs). SpencerT♦C 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, ITN is US-centric, but this does not mean that we should not include news about the US: the US is the world's hyperpower and as such its elections are important for the well-being of the world. Thus, it is appropriate to include lots of US political and other news in ITN, and after all this is the English Wikipedia and the US is a major member of the anglosphere. The real problem regarding ITN, is, however, that it is never updated frequently and it rarely notes important events outside the US or outside the anglosphere. Including US news in the ITN is good, but excluding international news is bad. Remember: the English Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia written in English, not an English encyclopedia about the English-speaking world. In fact, this is a prime feature that makes us more interesting, or at least less dull, than Microsoft Encarta, whose international editions focus too much on localities speaking the language each edition is written in. If you want to make ITN less US-centric, why whine about the presence of US news and not write a news item about another locality to balance it a bit? NerdyNSK (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too thrilled with this either, but it was unavoidable once the Biden story went up. I agree with NerdyNSK though, the best way to counter this is to suggest more headlines from around the world. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What did I tell you? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hm? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Wikinews Main Page Leads

I would like to propose that we include the lead articles from the Main Page of Wikinews at {{In the news}}. Some changes have been made to the review process over at Wikinews, which ensures that all articles that make it to one of the main page leads at Wikinews have gone through multiple stages of review:

  1. Develop stage - Articles are developed and a tag is used to solicit help and support from other contributors.
  2. Article gets sighted - Trusted Wikinews users promoted by admins to the class Wikinews:Editor check over the article, make sure that it does not contain blatant inaccuracies, copyvio, spam, vandalism, etc. and mark the article as sighted. Only sighted articles appear in the list under the relevant day on the Main Page.
  3. Review stage - Arguably the most important stage of the process. An independent reviewer that was not a significant contributor to the article reads the article and checks it against Wikinews policies and guidelines.
  4. The template, Peer reviewed, is used, to check the article against (5) key criteria:
  5. Using the Peer reviewed template, notes are left on the talk page of the article. If the article is not deemed ready for the Publish stage, the reviewer moves the tag on the article back to Develop and leaves notes for improvement. If the article is ready for the Publish stage, the reviewer notes that on the talk page in addition to review notes.
  6. Publish stage - After an independent review and notes have been left on the talk page by the reviewer affirming the article is ready for the Publish stage, any user may change the tag on the article from Review to Publish. This adds the article to the category of Published articles. Only articles that have been both Sighted as noted above, and marked with the Publish tag, will appear on the Main Page.
  7. After the article has been marked with the Publish tag, it is ready for consideration by an administrator to be highlighted in one of the Main Page Leads templates, which are all fully-protected. The admin will do a final once over, making sure that the article has gone through a satisfactory review, and update the Main Page Leads with newer articles.
  8. Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) scans the Main Page leads at Wikinews, and updates User:Wikinews Importer Bot/Wikinews Lead articles.

So that is the review process of how an article makes it from the Develop Stage to becoming one of the Main Page Leads on Wikinews.

Proposed: -- I propose that User:Wikinews Importer Bot/Wikinews Lead articles (the 3 most recent of the Wikinews Main Page Leads) is transcluded into {{In the news}} and thus onto the Main Page.

Thank you for your time and for giving this proposal your consideration.

Yours, Cirt (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The above subsection is pretty much a description of the review process and the proposal, so please discuss here, below. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Interesting idea. What do we do when (as now with McCain's VP pick and South Ossetia) the same story or similar story is on both? Just remove them from the main ITN section? If we transclude we'll have to have local admins tranferring from a bot updated page to the main ITN page or run the bot through RFA to get it a sysop bit.--chaser - t 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
We'd probably have to remove duplicates from main ITN, yeah - or alternatively just have both - as the ITN one would be bolded with perhaps a highlighted picture - the Wikinews one is just a simple link. I would support putting Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) through RFA - it should be noted that the bot's operator, Misza13 (talk · contribs), is already an administrator. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely support this idea and I thank Cirt for his efforts on Wikinews in ensuring the new stages of an article, and, as a result, ensuring even greater reliability in articles. I think also that the inclusion of four Wikinews articles would be a great idea for several reasons, listed below:

  1. Adding this to T:ITN will make Wikinews, which is still a relatively small project, more noticeable.
  2. By adding the lead articles T:ITN will be updated more quickly with the latest news
  3. By adding the four Wikinews leads to the Main Page, readers will be directed to a news site when looking for news, as they will be if browsing T:ITN. To me this seems better for the reader and more appropriate.

In response to Chaser's comment above, I think that it would be better to make the Wikinews Importer Bot an admin. I'd suggest that when the same story is on both, we leave them both there, as the two things are very different in what they do. Anonymous101 (talk)

Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) thank you very much for your support. I must say that there are many others other than myself at Wikinews that have had more of a role in helping to improve the review process over there. I should also note that at the moment Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) is taking the 3 newest of the 4 Main Page Leads from Wikinews, but Misza13 (talk · contribs) can easily modify it to be any number between 1 and 4. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, you have definitely had a very large role in ensuring the reliability of Wikinews. Without the efforts of you and brianmc, {{review}} would probably still be an optional stage. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks. I just hope this initiative gets implemented - :). Cirt (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the idea. At the moment, ITN is not intended to be a news service, rather it is intended to point out the articles that have been created/expanded to reflect current events of considerable importance. I agree that the whole peer review system you have is a good thing and that's what we are missing here when some drive-by admins unaware of ITN/C discussion post the items they consider appropriate without prior notice. Also, the news titles from Wikinews do not have links, links are the most important thing in ITN blurbs. Your proposal then completely changes the purpose of ITN section. Since there already is a link to Wikinews at the bottom, I feel changing it all is not a good idea. (and WP itself is not a news service, also, picture of the day is not a FP from Commons, the selection process is totaly a matter of :en wiki - for example). --Tone 21:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone, would you state why ITN isn't intended to include this information or link to prior discussions supporting the current status quo? That we've always done it one way isn't a good reason to continue if I don't know the reasons we've always done things that way. Thanks.--chaser - t 02:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Tone is trying to voice a concern that I share: that it changes the semantic nature of the Main Page's In the news (ITN) section. Whereas the current function of ITN is considered to be an aid to locating articles concerning topics related to current events, the proposed feature is in line with a feature that is intended to present news stories. Given that the two functions do not match, and indeed the proposal goes beyond the perceived scope of ITN as such, we do not support it in its current form. I do not mean that I specifically oppose this proposal, but that I find it inappropriate given the nature of the area it would update. If there is an alternate form which would also achieve the desirable goal of highlighting Wikinews, I would appreciate its consideration. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, I think that WP:NOT#JOURNALISM covers the assumption. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Nihiltres (talk · contribs) perhaps you could suggest some sort of alternate format/presentation that would be more acceptable to yourself and Tone (talk · contribs)? I am most certainly open to other types of ideas which could utilize User:Wikinews Importer Bot/Wikinews Lead articles. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Cirt for the wonderful work you do at Wikinews, but I have to agree with Tone and Nihiltres on this issue. I think the link to Wikinews in ITN is appropriate enough. Somehow, I fail to see a reason this article currently appearing on the Wikinews main page should be on the Wikipedia main page. Perhaps Wikinews could help expand content here on Wikipedia and then feature the article on ITN? SpencerT♦C 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict X2) I also don't like this idea and I echo Spencer's concern. Wikipedia is not an outpost of Wikinews. Besides, there's a link to Wikinews in ITN already, which is more than fair already. Look at FP of the day, they don't even have a link to Commons. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I should note that this would not be a replacement for the current model at ITN, merely an addition to it. These days T:DYK more often as 10 or so hooks, so perhaps we could make use of the spacing. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

One specific thing that concerns me in this proposal is balanced coverage. Given that some topics (US elections for example) draw lots of attention from all news services, those would prevail in ITN. And this is something we are struggling against, WP should not be any kind of centric, either state, specific sport or whatever. I know that the present ITN is not perfect yet but we are doing our best. Recently, a new system has been implemented, encouraging admins to post at least one new item per day, meaning that each post would stay there for less than a week. --Tone 18:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the n:Main Page of Wikinews has pretty balanced coverage as far as US versus global issues. And News items on the Wikinews Main Page do tend to change much more frequently than at ITN, so there would be increased variety/dynamism as well. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I am happy you have a balanced coverage. The problem with faster changing of items is that the articles taht have not been worked on would draw the attention. Just an example, ITN would report about an accident/war/scandal/sport event that would not even have its article on WP. How awkward would that be? But on the other side, if links were not included, this would be unpractical since one of the most common ways to browse WP is to follow the hyperlinks. I understand your proposal, the idea is good but I just don't see the way to implement it with the curent state of things. --Tone 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that all articles at Wikinews have many links back to Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles, and if there is an associated main article related to a current event, that is usually also highlighted twice - once in the article and once in a special box at the bottom right of the article. Cirt (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but are those articles updated to meet the standards? The problem here is not with Wikinews, the problem is with WP articles. --Tone 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The articles that the main ITN-linked articles themselves then link to may not be up to standards either. If links to Wikinews Main Page leads articles are added, then the first click would be to an article that went through the peer review process as described above, and the next to one of several choices of Wikipedia article links. Similarly, currently the first click is (hopefully) to a Wikipedia article that is up to standards and sourced appropriately, and the next from that Wikipedia article to another that may or may not be. So the click-through process as far as what the view sees is similar. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
We may be coming closer... Still, in any case, I would prefer an intermediate step between Wikinews and ITN. What we could try is to combine Wikinews headlines with Portal:Current events since the present nomination process uses this portal as one of the bases of possible posts. By the way, what is your position on news about important people passing away and sport events? We had long discussions about both of them here and we have some guidelines now. --Tone 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, Portal:Current events already has links to published Wikinews articles at the way bottom, but I'd certainly appreciate it if those links could somehow be moved higher or better yet incorporated into each of the days' sections listed on that page somehow. Where are the links to the previous discussions and guidelines about people passing away and sports events? Cirt (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Recurring items on ITN and Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Death criteria. The latter is still being worked on, a temporal solution is to include people from WP:LILP. This was mostly created in order to prevent ITN to become an obituary. How are those two pages compatible with Wikinews? --Tone 20:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Those are 2 interesting guidelines, we don't have things laid out like that at Wikinews, it is pretty much up to the discretion of the editor updating the Main Page leads - however it is expected that there is some variety and that no single country is over-represented, especially US topics. As stated previously, any article to be considered for the Main Page leads goes through the peer review process outlined above (and then all published articles do show up on the Main Page below the leads). Cirt (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I know you have a peer rewiev, I just don't want an automated bot to be able to post on Main page, as it was suggested somewhere above. My suggestion is that we incorporate the wikinews headlines on the candidates pages, that should help with the selection greatly. For a while. Then we will see, if it is reasonable to move even further or not. --Tone 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Tone (talk · contribs), that sounds like a reasonable first step - how do you propose it be done? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I planned to leave this page for good but made the mistake of visiting it and after seeing this felt I needed to offer my POV. Is wikinews really balanced as suggested above? I don't visit it that much, and haven't really in a while but the times I have I've often felt it is not balanced. No not American-centric for once (well not that I noticed although as I said I didn't visit it that much) but NZ-centric (not sure why but I've heard there are a lot of NZ editors there for some reason). Note that although I live in NZ, I usually wasn't visiting it because of NZ events so that's not the reason. It's possible I'm wrong or it was just random or the fact that I was able to easily recognise the headlines relating to NZ influenced my view or perhaps it was but that's changed but I definitely think we need to implement a wikipedia review before adding wikinews items. Switching our current occasional American-bias for an NZ bias (which frankly, given the relative unimportance of NZ in the world, is much worse) is not the way to go. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nil Einne (talk · contribs) - there is no New Zealand bias at Wikinews. I am sure that if you take a look at our n:Main Page you will see that articles from New Zealand are not overrepresented on the Main Page or in the Main Page leads. So the answer to this one is a simple no, this is simply an incorrect assessment. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't really follow wikinews so I can't accuse anyone of any-centric biase but let see, how I imagine the cooperation. Do you have something like Current events portal day-to-day summary of headlines that gets updated promptly? We can use this together with the current portal box. Still, some review is required because wikinews headlines are not always compatible with ITN posts - a step in between would do the job. --Tone 20:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not alter the headlines as they come over from Wikinews, as mentioned above, that already goes through multiple steps of peer review. But how about using Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) to insert headlines from Wikinews for each day, at the bottom of each of the seven listed day templates at Portal:Current events? I am sure that Misza13 (talk · contribs) would be able to configure that, and it would be a relatively minor step and pretty unobtrusive as well (and, the links are already listed at the very bottom of that page anyways already). Cirt (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This sounds nice. Ask Misza13 and let's give it a try. --Tone 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, will update you on progress of this. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, I'm curious as to what you thought of my comment: Perhaps content from Wikinews articles could help expand content here on Wikipedia articles and then feature those articles on ITN? SpencerT♦C 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Spencer (talk · contribs), I do not quite understand your suggestion: Couldn't Wikipedia contributors already do what you are saying by looking at Wikinews articles and utilizing the sources listed at the bottom? We want to incorporate links from Wikipedia to Wikinews, not simply tell Wikinews contributors to go and write Wikipedia articles - that much is already self-evident. In any event - the process to implement what you suggest is already in place, it is a wiki after all, and anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. That isn't really the crux of what I had proposed. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I was losing the gist of the proposal. SpencerT♦C 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a look from the other side. These are the headlines copied from today's page. Let me add some comments in the ITN light:

September 2

   * Google launches web browser, dubbed Chrome. Commercial.
   * UK government sued over deaths in 2006 Nimrod crash in Afghanistan. No go, no verdict yet.

September 1

   * Government of the Bahamas isssues warning over Hurricane Hanna. No major impact yet. 
   * Wikinews Shorts: September 1, 2008 - this is not really a headline.
   * Bush to skip Republican convention to monitor Gustav. Minor story, we had Gustav as the center. 
   * US presidential candidate Barack Obama's lead increases after Democratic National Convention. US elections-centric, no go. 
   * News agencies suggest that campaign operative for Republican Party edited article on vice presidential nominee. Wiki-centric, no go. 
   * Pakistan's military offensive suspended for Ramadan. This is interesting, has chances.

August 31

   * NASA considers continuing shuttle use after 2010. Speculation, not ITN material.
   * Italy will give Libya US$5 billion as compensation for occupation. Better formulation: Italy gives full apology or something, I wish we had this one on ITN before... (is there an article?)
   * Mayor of New Orleans tells residents to evacuate ahead of hurricane. Gustav story, we had that.
   * Radical left computer activists capture data of Blood and Honour web forum with 31,948 users. Not that interesting for ITN...

August 30

   * Hurricane Gustav batters Caribbean, threatens US Gulf Coast. Had that.
   * Former head of comedy for the BBC, Geoffrey Perkins dies in a road accident age 55. No, WP:LILP
   * Memorial for toddler who died under care of controversial '1 Mind Ministries' group. No, WP:LILP
   * Wikinews Shorts: August 30, 2008
   * Barack Obama accepts US presidential nomination from the Democratic Party. Loooong discussion about that one, decided for no.
   * South Ossetia says it will join North Ossetia-Alania as a federal subject of Russia. Had that.

Hm... Two or three headlines would probably make it to ITN with a slightly different wording but most are not really compatible. Now I am even more certain that a human interface with confirmation votes is needed. But wikinews headlines are helpful in selecting ITN posts, of that I am sure. --Tone 13:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, but again, perhaps these are things you would not see usually on Wikipedia, thus giving ITN a bit more dynamism and variety. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Tone. And also, I noticed that Wikinews is the most linked sister-project on the Main Page, more than any other project. Commons isn't even linked to in POTD. SpencerT♦C 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well I am still waiting to hear back from Misza13 (talk · contribs), so for the time being we'll proceed with the suggestion from Tone (talk · contribs) regarding Portal:Current events. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update - Proposal for Portal:Current events

Please see User:Cirt/Current events. This incorporates the suggestion from Tone (talk · contribs) [6], above, that instead of including direct links to Wikinews articles on the Main Page in Template:In the news, they be incorporated into Portal:Current events as an intermediate step.

Please note that links to Wikinews articles are already present at Portal:Current events, at the bottom as {{Wikinewstable}}. This change just moves those exact same articles directly below each relevant date box. Note: Due to the way Portal:Current events is structured, the change would have to be made to Portal:Current events/Inclusion, not to Portal:Current events. Thank you for considering this, Cirt (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this looks quite neat an organized. Has this been suggested at Portal talk:Current events? SpencerT♦C 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I gave a link there in a new subsection back to this discussion [7], as that page has been really inactive for quite some time and we were already discussing it here anyways. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I like it. So if we transclude the headlines on the ITC/C page, it will be helpful in selecting new ITN topics. --Tone 14:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current storm news

Hi. I think the "Tropical Storm Hanna (pictured) moves towards the U.S. South Atlantic coast after causing at least 25 deaths in Haiti." is unnecessarily US-centric. Has it even reached the Bahamas yet? Not according to the article or the image (which may or may not be fully updated). So, not only US centric, it additionally belittles the Bahamas. If I knew whether it hit Bahamas or not, I would attempt to trump the current wording right away. Punkmorten (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I just came here to make a similar comment. What is with the recent trend of warning the southern states that a storm is coming in from the Gulf? There was a warning earlier for Gustav, too. I think it is inappropriately US-centric. However, my main concern is that this can be dangerously misleading. These people live through storm season every year, and they have trustworthy resources for getting their storm updates. I suspect that most of them are fully aware of the storm status—either from TV, radio, or weather websites—just as one might expect Hawaiians to be on relatively higher alert for volcano activity than someone from Connecticut. By putting it on the main page, we are inviting otherwise ignorant people to use the Wikipedia article to make decisions on what they will do in response to the storm. Sure, very few people would actually base their decisions on the Wikipedia article, but isn't that just another reason to exclude it from the main page? This is just a storm heading for the U.S., a storm that has potential to be very notable, but so far is not. If the storm does something remarkable (immense destruction like Andrew or Katrina, or continues all the way up to north Saskatchewan), then it will warrant main page exposure. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
most of the news in ITN is US related anyways. for this particular story whats wrong is the fact that storm heading for US is the focus and not the deaths in Haiti. Why was it not posted when it was heading for Haiti? Just change ITN to CNN and be done with it 99.237.118.115 (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
actually i apologize for making it look like CNN is more US-Centric than ITN. The CNN story for storm mentions the deaths first and then says the storm will head for US. 99.237.118.115 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While I hate to interrupt this wonderful spate of US-bias-bashing, I feel I should clarify a few things. First of all, the ITN entries have nothing to do with warnings, but highlight recently updated articles that discuss topics featured in the news media. Secondly, it is entirely appropriate in a geographical context to use "heading towards the US" as a reference point. Some people who may not be able to find the Bahamas or Jamaica on a map could certainly find the states. Also, you may note that when Gustav first appeared on ITN there was no mention of the US at all. Also, Twas Now, do you feel that 100-odd deaths in Haiti are not notable, but a storm in northern Saskatchewan would be? Random89 17:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac intervention

I don't think we need to qualify this as "one of the largest banking interventions in United States history" (my italics) – it is arguably the largest in history, and certainly one of the largest. Physchim62 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as that statement can be backed up by reliable, sourced information in the takeover article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:In_the_news"
Personal tools