Wikipedia talk:In the news

Picture

The Heriberto Lazcano picture is DEA, so I think it's free enough for main page, if we want to get Chavez out of there. --IP98 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Now, I know that the nobel prize is noteworthy, but really, do we have to have every item in the ITN section related to who won the award? Winning an Olympic Medal is noteworthy, but we didn't report every gold. One or two entries is more than enough. Better yet, have something that points to a central article or something? But seriously, every single entry?74.124.47.11 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Nobel Prizes are on WP:ITN/R and nobody has made an argument against them being there. As such, each award is put on the front page with less argument or debate than usual. Unless and until someone makes an argument against their place on ITN/R, this won't change. I'd like to point out at this stage that the awards only take up approximately a week in a single year, and that other nominations have not been forthcoming in great number recently. doktorb _words^deeds 18:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Golbez (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's educational. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Replace Euro flag pic

I hate to be a whinger and I know the choice of pics depends of lots of forces beyond our control such what free pics are available and I know the Nobel Peace Prize is the top news item now--but can I suggest we have a more informative picture than the EU flag? Perhaps the EU parliament building, or a picture of the actual prize. Or a picture related to one of the other blurbs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The flag is now beside the High Court of Botswana ruling so there's the possibility of confusion among non-African and non-European readers. There is a nice little diagram which shows the EU member states in order of accession. Even the picture of Mo Yan would be more appropriate and educational. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been there for days now! Is there no other available pic?--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If we didn't persist with the ridiculous ban on fair-use images we could use the cover of Bring up the Bodies. But otherwise I can't see any suitable images available for any of the other items. Modest Genius ^talk 12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Could go with the flag of Botswana. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Settling for the Flag of Europe is far from ideal, but at least the European Union is one of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize item's main subjects (the award's recipient).

Conversely, the Mmusi and Others v Ramantele and Another item is about an event that occurred in Botswana (not about Botswana itself), so that would be a major stretch. Displaying no image at all is preferable to using one that's purely decorative. —David Levy 14:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Whether or not this is judged to be actual canvassing of one administrator by another it does at least seem appropriate to record its occurrence. Which is why I've left it here. For the sake of transparency. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have nothing better to do? -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not canvassing in my book. Spencer^T♦C 04:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw it in passing so thought I'd mention. Lots to do actually. And I am doing it. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What's really shameful here are the post-posting panicked pull votes. Those editors had a chance to vote, and didn't. It wasn't BorgQuuen's fault they didn't. I have to wonder how many people are going to come out on Nov 7 in the US and scream that they would have voted the day before if they had known the election was going to go as it did? These pull votes had nothing to do with some unnoticed flaw in the nomination--they were just confessions of laziness, and should have been discounted as too bad, too late, pay attention next time. As for the accusation canvassing? At best it was a case of please cover my ass for me, in case anyone's watching. I have never seen one admin support a plain old editor against another admin when there's a complaint about enforcing the rules equally on all. Some animals are more equal than others. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, not everyone in the world knows about the existence of ITN/C. And even those who do often prefer or are otherwise busy with contributing to more reader-oriented parts of Wikipedia (e.g. articles) and so comment only if a discussion is borderline or going against their preference. While one could argue this situation fit in the borderline category, the post-posting pull requests were highly predictable -- and BorgQueen should have known that (and maybe did), even if the number of them here was exceptionally high. Unlike with an election, there is no declared end time for offering one's opinion here, so the 'too bad, so sad' mentality is misplaced. -- tariqabjotu 05:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You should simply have pulled the item yourself, as you should also simply close the discussion as moot without implying that other's comments in other discussions have forced you into it. μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. -- tariqabjotu 06:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO Tariqabjotu's request here seemed to be entirely appropriate, c.f. WP:Third opinion. Let's not get too bogged down on this item, something got posted, the community decided it should be pulled, it got pulled. We need to move on before we start scaring off editors and admins from our fairly small ITN/C crowd. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support of the admin's action. I won't get bogged down in details, but the admin in question correctly judged this to be an outlier of a post, and that WP consensus was strongly in favor of it being pulled. I don't think any reasonable person could have judged the consensus there otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mo Yan

Considering that a standard AFD procedure was just halted because hallucinatory realism was added to the Main Page after its existence had been contested by multiple users, I feel that I really must point out that "famous for writing in a style known as hallucinatory realism" is very much a misrepresentation of the sources; indeed, the AFD was taking place precisely because the sources did not indicate that hallucinatory realism was a genre or style. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem with the ITN blurb came from the way in which the citation was phrased. The citation from which ITN took its blurb says "The Nobel Prize in Literature for 2012 is awarded to the Chinese writer Mo Yan “who with hallucinatory realism merges folk tales, history and the contemporary”", given in French as "Le prix Nobel de littérature pour l’année 2012 est attribué à l'écrivain chinois Mo Yan « qui avec un réalisme hallucinatoire unit conte, histoire et le contemporain »". Through the blurb process, "hallucinatory realism" was misconstrued as a genre and not a style. I can see why the AfD process was halted through this misunderstanding. doktorb _words^deeds 18:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Posting without update

Norodom Sihanouk was posted with a one sentence update merely stating his death. I updated it afterwards, but generally articles should not be posted with such a minimal update. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that's totally insufficient. Modest Genius ^talk 12:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent deaths

The discussion on recent deaths has been closed with the decision to implement the names only proposal. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. My big objection to the death ticker is that we don't control the rate of deaths, and that it may be under utilized or become stale. I would like to suggest that we do a bot request to take the top 3 non-redlink recent deaths items and populate a new Template:DeathTicker. Template:DeathTicker could then be transcluded into Template:InTheNews. This will make sure the "death ticker" doesn't get stale, and that we don't have to battle through a nomination process for each update. Items which fail WP:NOTABILITY will be quickly stricken from Deaths in 2012. PS: I'm IP98, currently on a self-imposed wikibreak. If the bot idea is supported, but we don't get any takers, I can write it in PHP. Cheers. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC) (IP98)

Is this fully automatic? Notability concerns aside, I don't want poor quality articles appearing on the front page, even if the person has just died. How would it check for updated content or decent article quality? Spencer^T♦C 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the last two comments were made without reading the proposal that was passed. Names for the death ticker still need to be proposed and approved on grounds of importance and update: they will simply be displayed differently (although for how long remains unclarified and was the grounds of my opposition). Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't read the original RFC, it was massive and lumbering. So we got admin closure with agreement to do something, but no consensus on how to do it. With a new death posted every few days, a name could be a "recent death" for over a week on the main page of WP. The only way I support the "death ticker" is the bot, any other way is staggeringly unnecessary. Anyway, I'm on a wikibreak, back in November some time. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC) (IP98)

Recent Deaths / In The News change proposal

Closed by eraserhead with the following comments:

Closing as consensus for names only - it is clear from the below discussion that there is a consensus for this change - it stops ITN being an obituary but also makes sure that recent deaths are covered on the main page which attract lots of readers. I don't find the argument that it would take up space to be compelling, ITN usually turns over once a week or so, so losing the bottom item doesn't seem like a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

However, this decision is rejected as invalid. Since his action eefectively re-opened the discussion he may not legitimately be considered to be uninvolved. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC).

Rationale There is general consensus that continued conflicts over the scope of nominations of obituary postings to In the news can best be addressed by removing most nominated passings to a new separate section where Recent deaths is currently located. It was argued that this would better serve strong reader interest in recent passings, pay for itself in space by freeing up ITN from listing all but the most "important" deaths, and streamline the ITN nom process by ending debate of whether too many celebrities, etc., are being nominated. See that closed discussion here.

It is proposed that either a one or two line section (no longer than the longest of normal ITN blurbs) of either bare links (example):

Recent deaths: Tony Nicklinson, Nina Bawden, Dom Mintoff, Phyllis Diller, Tony Scott, more....

or one with one word blurbs (example):

Recent deaths: Activist Tony Nicklinson, Author Nina Bawden, Malta PM Dom Mintoff,

Comedienne Phyllis Diller, Director Tony Scott, more...

be placed at the bottom of the ITN section, below the Wikinews and More current events links and any current stickies. (Note that the names used here are just used as examples.)

Furthermore: (1) The nomination process would (unless it is found necessary to change at a later date) remain part of the ITN nominating process, with the added provision that a plurality of support votes would favor a full normal ITN listing with blurb, a majority of oppose votes would favor no listing at all, and a plurality of recent death vote would support a listing in the new mini-section. (2) Full listings in ITN would still be the norm for a restricted class of nominees, namely (sitting) heads of state and unexpected deaths of major celebrities, according to consensus. (3) All listings would require nomination and consensus, and remain in chronological order until pushed off by a newer listing.

Please do not add comments here. Please place any comments below the RfC section

Shall the link Recent deaths in the In the news section be replaced with an expanded recent deaths section, and if so, should one-word blurbs or bare links be used? μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support per rationale, with one-word blurbs, as nom. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support We've lost a lot of notable figures over the past few days, but as noted above the ongoing debate about recent deaths and ITN suggests the need for a long term resolution. ITN is not an obituary, and in my opinion deaths should only make the main list in the event of the passing of very significant public figures (i.e. the Pope, sitting Head of State and/or Head of Government, or another extremely-well known public figure, (i.e. Gandhi, John Lennon, MLK Jr. and so on and so forth). However, people not of "massive" importance still may meet the notability threshold for their deaths to be widely covered, and we should still list them on the Main Page. (Take a look at the page views from the past few days; note how "Recent Deaths" individuals tend to trend pretty high Note how Phyllis Diller is, as of posting, #6, even though she isn't on the front page. "Deaths in 2012" is #10.) Moving most recent deaths from ITN to a separate list would not only free up entries for other events, but would solve most concerns about ITN not being an obituary. (Oh, sorry if this is a bit disjointed. I'm tired.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (Reposting from above; everything still holds. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC))
• Strong support with one-word blurbs. Imzadi 1979 → 04:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, slightly prefer one-word description (or two words when necessary). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, the descriptions sound like a good idea, but in practice they make the section look pretty cluttered. Names only would be better. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb - summarising a person using one word is potentially problematic, giving undue weight and leading to many debates about which aspect of that person's history is most important. In the example above this one word rule has already been broken (Malta PM). violet/riga _^[talk] 10:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support one-word blurbs per nom strong preference for names only--I find WFC's mockup convincing. Khazar2 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support with strong preference for names only. This thread reads to me as an attempt to push one-word blurbs through: a phrase with negative connotations used for names only, and no mockups provided (which would show clearly that names are miles better). —WFC— 12:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're unsure why I'm so strongly in favour of names only, see below how much trimming would be necessary to keep the content on one line.

collapsing WFC's mock ups to save space - Gomorro (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in the 2011 Norway attacks, is sentenced to 21 years in prison. Sectarian clashes linked to the Syrian civil war continue in Lebanon's second largest city, Tripoli (pictured). Ethnic clashes over grazing rights for cattle in Kenya's Tana River District result in more than 50 deaths. Russia, formerly the world's largest non-WTO economy, joins the World Trade Organization after 19 years of negotiations. The Constitutional Court of Romania declares a referendum to impeach President Traian Băsescu invalid, reinstating him. Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in the 2011 Norway attacks, is sentenced to 21 years in prison. Sectarian clashes linked to the Syrian civil war continue in Lebanon's second largest city, Tripoli (pictured). Ethnic clashes over grazing rights for cattle in Kenya's Tana River District result in more than 50 deaths. Russia, formerly the world's largest non-WTO economy, joins the World Trade Organization after 19 years of negotiations. The Constitutional Court of Romania declares a referendum to impeach President Traian Băsescu invalid, reinstating him.

Those are early drafts, but even from those it's obvious that one-word blurbs would significantly detract from the look of the thing. —WFC— 12:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support bare links only. I do foresee problems with trying to keep the nomination process about weighing consensus, if we are also introducing the notion of formalised vote counting as a way to decide where it goes, but I have no way around that at this time, and don't want that to prevent this improvement being implemented because of that. Gomorro (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmmm...bit ghoulish, but I concede bare links might be ok. Better than full line in some ways.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support bare links only I've been a fan of this for a while. Hot Stop 14:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am hardly set on one-word blurbs; bare links was my own first suggestion, and I do see the main advantage in not having them as making room for one or two extra listings. (It is hardly like I didn't provide examples of both formats--to imply there is some sort of conspiracy to force one option is odd.) The main drawback for bare links would be for listings such as Jon Lord whose listing most people would simply have said "huh?" to. "Keyboardist John Lord" would be much more informative. blurb is especially helpful with people outside the Anglosphere. Also, the "mock-up" strangely inserts space/mdash/space between listings, when a comma is what has been proposed, and surely at least one more name (and the names should have been bolded) could have been fit in the line of each version of the mock-up. And obviously if we go with one-word blurbs it will be necessary to put the country and title of statesmen when they die (e.g., Japanese PM Shinzō Abe, US Governor Mario Cuomo) which is still just one term; I didn't think it helpful or necessary to explain this above the RfC. I do think WFC's example of having Recent deaths before the names and more after is a superior idea, so I will change that in the two examples I gave in the rationale section. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support names only There are some people for which their life accomplishment just couldn't be summed up in one word. And some times you would really need more than one, just like the nationalities above. If say John Major died would you put Former British Prime Minister John Major? Or would you have to shorten it to something horrible like ex-UK PM John Major? It would just cause more arguments, stick to names only. --23230 ^talk 17:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what is so horrible or difficult with "British PM John Major" or even "UK PM John Major". It seems like one is looking for objections. But each is entitled to his aesthetic preferences. I see merit in both formats and each as highly preferable to the status quo. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Because that sort of implies he was the current Prime Minister, at least to my eyes. It was just an example. I would say if a politician, who wasn't notable enough to get onto the main ITN of course, was to be included the description would have to include at least their country and title. If, for example, Michaëlle Jean died I couldn't see any other way to say Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean, or as I would prefer former Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean. Canadian Governor General Michaëlle Jean perhaps is slightly shorter, but it's still going to take up a lot of space. But then if you add nationalities for politicians then what about sports players? Anyway that's just the practicality reason, I'm mainly against the blurb in principle for the reason I gave - having to sum up a person's life in one or a few words. Not only is that going to be hard it could be controversial. As an example, Tony Nicklinson is listed above as Activist which doesn't really say anything and isn't really what he's known for primarily (I would also argue that for a name to be included on the list they should have a reasonable article). That's sort of my main argument, I do strongly agree that implementing the list is a very good idea, I just don't think the descriptions will work in practice.--23230 ^talk 18:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But the purpose of the one-word blurb is manifestly not to sum up the person's life, just to give the reader a vague sense of the person's field. If they are that important they will get a full blurb, as I expect Margaret Thatcher and Bill Clinton will, one word blurbs won't matter--and even then, will the full blurb summarize their entire lives? I am quite sure I could come up with other hard cases, but "activist Tony Nicklinson is a lot better than "cripple Tony Nicklinson" and "Can. Politician Michaëlle Jean" works just fine. Since all the listed people will be ex-people I don't think specifying ex- would be necessary. It looks lie consensus is unanimous in favor of the change and two to one in favor of bare links, with which no one seems to have a huge objection, so the issue seems moot. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What about "Politician John Major"? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems like the election ticker all over again. If the problem is a perception that there are too many deaths on ITN posting more deaths is not the solution. Space on the main page is limited, space available to ITN more so. The recent deaths link on the main page accounts for two words - that is a single name. If we start listing names that necessarily cuts into space available for other stories. Why should deaths that couldn't currently pass at ITN/C be featured in preference to other stories that do meet that requirement? Nor do I see this cutting down the number of bitter arguments on ITN/C: instead of one threshold to debate there are then two - one for a basic mention and one for a full blurb.

The problem with a lot of deaths is fancruft-derived biased assessment of notability: "I really like this actor/singer/whatever therefore they are really notable, and this is evidenced by this or that gushing obituary rather than something more impartial." This does nothing to counter that - indeed it will probably make it worse as the number of death listings will inevitably increase and the standard of each one will go through the floor. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC).

This is not the election ticker. Elections need blurbs, because they are stories. A death is not a story. A death is a time to remember someone's life, and the best way to lead someone to a dead person's life is with a simple link to that person. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. I think Tony Scott was a hack, and never enjoyed a single one of his movies, but he was notable enough in my book to have a single bare link to his name on the front page when he died. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But at the expense of what else? At times there may be as little as three blurbs listed. If recent deaths takes up the space of a "longest possible blurb" that may go down to two or even one main story. Why should posts that have strong consensus behind them be knocked off the template by on-screen clutter that couldn't pass through the regular procedure? Until that is answered that is usurping the normal consensus-building process in favour of giving over a significant amount of space to a single class of article backed up by a lower standard or consensus or even a simple straw poll: I note that you don't consider the strength of arguments, only a simple count of votes. That does encourage fancruft since the situation devolves into a simple popularity contest. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC).

That's an interesting question. I am not sure where you got the idea that this was meant to shrink the ITN section above it. It should have the effect of freeing up space since noms like Nora Ephron or Marvin Hamlisch would normally be Recent death-line items instead of full ITN listings. I am not sure what the policy is for ITN, I have seen it have anywhere from 4 to 7 items. I have very often argued that we should condense the listings which are often horribly wordy and redundant, to allow more listings. Almost always my remarks to that effect have been ignored--perhaps it should be the next RfC. And of course I expect nominations to come with arguments, not just plain votes. Again, I didn't think it was even necessary to specify that rationales would remain necessary when I didn't say that they would become unnecessary. For the third time now, nominations would proceed as normal, and of course reasons would be expected. All that would be new is the possibility of voting recent death instead of support or oppose. Do you still oppose on that basis? μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You say space on the Main Page is limited, but it's very rare that ITN ticks over at the sort of rate that our readers expect. If for argument's sake this proposal permanently removes one story from the Main Page (a premise I don't fully accept, as it's very easy to ask TFA to add another 15 words), is that such a bad thing? The bottom story is usually stale anyway. At least with deaths, the funeral/memorial generally takes place 5-10 days after the person passes away. —WFC— 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per crispmuncher. This does not "fix" the issue: which people do we decide to list? Any person with an article who's died recently? Spencer^T♦C 19:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That was addressed explicitly in both this thread and the one before. There is no proposition to list any-old-one with an article who has died recently. Read the rationale section above if you haven't, (and again, if you have already). Deaths would have to be nominated and there would have to be more votes for listing than oppositions for them to go on the board. Fancruft is a bizarre objection, since per the trending link above, only Phyllis Diller and Tony Scott would have made it based on readership interest yet didn't. Since according to the RfC the section will be restricted to the size of a single current blurb, there is no risk the section will expand beyond a handful of listings. Oppose votes are welcome, but you should oppose what has actually been suggested, not some imagined strawman. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, and opinion changed accordingly. I still don't think that this is the best solution to the issue; per Tone, ITN would become too much like an obituary. Spencer^T♦C 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose changes. The system we have now works well. By this change, the ITN would become a permanent obituary - something we are we trying to avoid all the time. --Tone 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Does it work well? At the moment we have some people who interpret ITN/DC liberally, others who interpret it strictly, and some who base their opinions solely on the level of coverage the person received in the user's country and generation. The problem being that the latter group generally care the most, and often end up making the decisive arguments. That's a recipe for systemic bias, which we are accused of all the time, and even when nobody cries bias, close death debates frequently turn sour.

    Under this proposal, most people would interpret the current ITN/DC liberally for the ticker at the bottom, and strictly for a full-blown blurb. That sounds like a much smoother system to me. —WFC— 04:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

    • My view is to feature only the top top people, such as Neil Armstrong. Some less-known people sometimes also get a blurb but still less than we would get by implementing this proposal. I believe we would run into endless discussions again whom to include in the short list (everyone with an article? Probably not... So, here we go again). --Tone 12:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Under this proposal, fewer people would be featured, as fewer people would have a proper blurb. On the basis that they got proper blurbs, you have to assume that the likes of Adam Yauch and Jon Lord would get namechecks under this new system, but what this would do is ensure that borderline candidates like them do not get out-and-out blurbs. The only people with the inclination to obstruct the discussion would be those determined to ensure that only the likes of Neil Armstrong make Main Page at all. But in the knowledge that the community generally doesn't hold this view, and that the likes of Lord currently receive equal coverage to Neil Armstrong and U.S. Presidential elections, I am confident that these people would recognise the new system as an improvement on the status quo. —WFC— 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Would make the main page even more information heavy. I find the current link to all "Recent deaths" sufficient. --ELEKHH^T 21:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support for one-word blurbs per rationale. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Please look at this list. It is to be assumed that under the new proposal, all of the above listings except, perhaps, for Whitney Houston would have been approved as Recent death listings, rather than full ITN listings. If you oppose having ITN as an obituary, please consider supporting this proposal. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support names only - based on experience at ITN, I do feel we need this, and it also lets us post some of those deaths that aren't for an ITN blurb itself, but are pretty famous and could be used in such a section. --Activism1234 02:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support bare links- See my rationale in the first discussion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with those who see this as unneeded and eating up more of the limited ITN Main page space. I see this as an end-around (an American football term) by those with an agenda for ITN. The current links to Recent deaths is more than enough. Jusdafax 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Putting aside your lack of assuming good faith on the part of those who support this proposal, how often is it that none of the ITN stories have gone stale? And on the rare occasions that this happens, what would be so difficult about going to TFA and asking them to make their blurbs a little bit longer for the next week/ helping them to carry this out? —WFC— 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, prefer names only. The main list should be reserved for cases where there's something noteworthy about the death itself (eg. death of a sitting head of state). --Carnildo (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Just names. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as a permanent line. In the last week or so it has been a slow news week, so relatively low profile deaths have had much media attention: in another week we would either be featuring deaths that are even lower profile simply to keep a turnover in this row, or having minor TV personalities on the main page for 8-10 days. We should be willing to post combined blurbs that combine several deaths that are notable but would otherwise be disproportionate in the template. Look at the recent deaths list for August: from 1st to 17th, I would suggest that there are no more than two names (Bernard Lovell and Marvin Hamlisch) who would have in anyway justified front page prominence. Would we really have wanted them on the MP for at least 11 days? Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• In circumstances like that, I think we would have the collective intelligence to temporarily disable the line. The remote possibility that we wouldn't is a pretty weak reason to oppose. —WFC— 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is at all remote: did you see the state of the stickies in the latter stages of the Olympics and the last World Cup? Inertia takes over... Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, prefer names only. German Wikipedia has got it right imo. Not just deaths but some other items which gets over the undue to deaths issue. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• support bare names only. The fact that German wikipedia does this shows that this is viable. However, making this change would have ramifications and require new guidelines. We would have to decide what deaths are worthy of posting, and we would have to discuss whether or not deaths could ever be put on the normal ITN template (which I believe we should do very very notable deaths where there is a sufficient update). Presumably a new discussion page would have to be created. However, despite the concerns, I do think this would fix some issues. Namely, in the case of notable deaths where the only update we have is a 1-2 sentence update, such as that of Neil Armstrong at the time we posted that. In this case, we could have immediately put his name in the Recent Deaths line without discussion of whether the update was sufficient. However, a debate would have possibly ensued as to whether Armstrong was worthy of being put on the ITN template proper.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose all the above I can't accept this proposal moving forward. It fundamentally changes ITN and the front page, and does so in a way which will tie in knots the hands of all ordinary editors who attempt participation at ITN. Whilst well meaning, it's a fundamental alteration to the processes, heavy-handed in its approach, and deflates the importance of argument, debate and consensus building. Oppose from top to bottom doktorb _words^deeds 22:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wastes space and will just create another circle of hell in which endless discussions take place over who should be listed. --Stephen 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support bare links - seems like a good idea to me - reduces space needed for each individual entry, allowing more entries to run at once. That could in effect add space for other ITN items by not having a death take up more space than the name. LadyofShalott 00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The front page needs to be kept on the move, and famous people just don't do enough dying. If we had implemented this on 1 January, we would have had nothing for the first six days, then maybe Bob Holness if we were willing to lower the bar that far (no disrespect to the great man) then AFAICT the best we could have done is wait for 1 February for Don Cornelius as our second posting. Then a few days later, there's Florence Green - the first death of the year to be nominated for ITN. On 11 February, you have the first death of the year that most people would think merited the front page, Whitney Houston. Then on 22 February, we have a busy day and a choice of Frank Carson and Marie Colvin. If we typically display four "recent" deaths, then this is the day when Bob Holness ends his 6½-week stay on the front page. Alternatively, we could have just posted Whitney Houston, which is what we did. Formerip (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, and too subjective. Agree with Stephen above. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. People are not dying fast enough. Also, it will be redundant when really famous people die and also have a separate blurb in ITN. Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support with bare links. If a reader does not recognize the name, they are not likely to want to read the article. Compactness is a virtue. As the bar will be a little lower for this than ITN, there will be enough names. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Following up my support !vote--5+ years ago the ITN death criteria were extremely tight--one of the criteria was that the actual death should result in the creation of its own article. The criteria were intended to prevent ITN from becoming an obituary page. The situation resulted in very strong arguments, and led to numerous high-profile figures' deaths not being posted--Pavarotti, Arthur C Clarke, and Ingmar Bergmann being among the more notable examples. This resulted in a discussion (which was very civil) which involved no less a figure than Jimbo Wales. The result was the loosening of the criteria to what they are now. (It should also be noted, that many years ago ITN in general posted fewer items on average). Strong arguments have still occurred. However, in recent years we have definitely significantly lowered the bar on what deaths make ITN, and IMO we have gone too far at times, posting deaths of mid-level celebrities.
  

One thing I have observed in participating in ITN for three years and also looking back at past discussion is that I believe there is a strong opinion--a consensus I believe--tbat ITN, or some other MP area, should feature the deaths of famous figures; when famous people die a lot of people come to Wikipedia to read about the person and it makes sense to enable that. Conversely, there is a strong opinion that ITN should not have too many deaths. Furthermore, posting deaths is difficult sometimes due to the update requirement; and I believe we have sometimes posted deaths after updating the article with undue weight to the death section. Thus, with both those opinions in mind, this solution seems to make perfect sense--it enables Wikipedia to direct readers to bio articles of famous people who are recently deceased while reducing the total MP real estate these entries take. Yes, creating this new obituary line will lead to further debates on who to include (I like the 'circle of hell' metaphor above). We can only speculate how things work out, but I strongly believe implementing this will actually decrease arguments. Hopefully people who may normally vehemently oppose a particular death being posted in ITN will be less opposed to a bare link entry in the recent deaths line. I also don't believe there will be a problem in posting enough deaths, as we will be able to lower the threshold of notability. --Johnsemlak (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove

Im proposing we remove the Deaths link in the ITN box as undue. Notale deaths can (and are) discussed at ITNC. Its also UNDUE to have deaths, ut not other regular calendars like the elections or sports ones. This could then also open the space for stickies if need be. Right now i think it just a space filler for the sake of it.

In dint see the above,, but strongly oppose posting any and all deaths without consensus. I dont think there was even consensus to have this a s a permanent sticky. I propose remving it all together as UNDUE.Lihaas (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support keeping it if the other proposals die out. I've no idea what you mean with all the UNDUE nonsense; ITN isn't an article so it doesn't apply. Hot Stop 14:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• I mean this in a polite way, but I truly don't understand what you are proposing here. Are you proposing that we edit the existing ITN to remove recent deaths? Or are you expressing an opinion on the above policy, giving your post a level three header in the hope that doing so will make a difference? —WFC— 16:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• If my interpretation is correct, that you wish to remove the "Recent deaths" sticky, then strongly oppose. ITN cannot claim to be a news summary w/o an obituary section. No newspaper would seriously consider removing theirs, so we shouldn't. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Close and Implement

Consensus is strongly in favor of implementing the suggested recent deaths change with bare links. A simple count of the votes is 18 to 11 in favor, paralleling the 8 to 2 in favor vote in the closed discussion above, and reading many of the opposes one sees they are opposing something which hasn't been proposed, or oppose the change on the grounds that it is a change. I suggest we implement the version with bare links by WFC shown in the collapsed section above, starting with Rev. Moon, and Hal David (whom I will nominate tonight if it has not already been done) and perhaps Max Bygraves if there is no opposition to that. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support per rationale. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support without anyone being listed until they have gone through the nomination process. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per rationale, but with Bzweebl's statement. --Activism1234 19:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply the nomination process should be bypassed, just that the names I gave would be good nominees. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The above summary does not accurately represent the points I made above. Read the proposal: this reduces ITN to a vote rather than consensus-finding process. The "rebuttal" of my oppose (and the others) was based on the view that deaths would be subject to the same consensus process as other nominations. That is not what the proposal says: it refers to pluralities and majorities. Indeed, the very drafting of the proposal is biased towards posting since it requires a majority to block a proposal but only a plurality to post. This is a significant departure from established policy and contrary to the above I still have not received a proper response. Why should blurbs with consensus be knocked off the template by a rigged straw poll?

Expressed another way, if 34% favour a full posting, 33% favour a link, and 33% oppose completely, it gets a full posting, regardless of the strength of arguments, or even whether it is updated or if the article has issues. That is not a consensus-finding process in any form that I recognise. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you forgot the read the sentence stating that "All listings would require nominations and consensus..." (my emphasis). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And obviously the voter did not intend a literal vote count, though that's how it seemed, nor would anything be posted without an update. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not what the proposal says. It can't be spun to say what you want it to say when it is right there in black and white: "a plurality of support votes would favor a full normal ITN listing with blurb, a majority of oppose votes would favor no listing at all, and a plurality of recent death vote would support a listing in the new mini-section." Sounds like vote counting to me. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC).

That's what I meant when I said "the voter did not intend a literal vote count, though that's how it seemed." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think everything must be read in context. Taking sentences out of context, as you have done IMO, inhibits discussion. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support I believe there is a consensus above for implementing the bare links option.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

By definition, there cannot be consensus for something that overrides WP:CONSENSUS. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC).

• Support There's a pretty clear consensus for implementing the bare links option. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but if you look beyond the fact that a majority supports the bare links proposal, those supporters also supply much stronger, logical arguments; as opposed to straw man tactics or "I don't like it" comments. If you still oppose the proposal, try changing your arguments. As it stands, this meets WP:CONSENSUS Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There clearly isn't consensus for the change and holding a second vote as to whether there was consensus in the first vote is, well, it's not normal. Formerip (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposal could easily have been amended to eliminate references to vote counting, that may have been something to consider, but for some reason people seem more interested in forcing this through. No, I am not about to propose such amendments because I don't agree with the proposal in any event. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

• Oppose simply put, we can't control the rate of deaths. Only one has gone up in the first 9 days of September. A death is a nom like any other and can stand on it's own. I suggest striking WP:ITN/DC. --IP98 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is a discussion on whether there is consensus for a change, not a place to bring new arguments to the table. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support for moving to a technical trial period of one month with the proposed terse list form (Name, profession. Name, profession…), because it gained mostly positive reception in the above discussion. During the trial period it should be then decided if the practice should become permanent or not. No grounds to change existing selection procedure however: it is contested above, and had no broad acknowledgement. All nominations must still pass WP:ITNC procedure as usual. Just under normal circumstances deaths are not posted as blurbs – unless it's Michael Jackson of course.

No changes are required to existing policy, because the deaths criteria is already sufficient. Problem at hand does not stem from current criteria being too strict; it is with most editors (quite rightly) feeling that most reported deaths don't merit a full blurb, even if the deceased was undoubtedly "very important figure in his or her field"; which is supposed to be the criterion.

Only required technical changes I can see would be adding the "Recent deaths:" row to Template:In the news and making sure it plays well with the rest of the Main page, and maybe adding a new field to {{ITN candidate}} indicating that the nominator is not nominating for a full blurb, just a death mention. --hydrox (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. - Per Crispmuncher: "The very drafting of the proposal is biased towards posting since it requires a majority to block a proposal but only a plurality to post." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've unarchived the above discussion which was still being edited after a bot moved it to Archive 42 so it's visible to the community. Nobody Ent 21:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)