Wikipedia talk:In the news

Pathetic

I largely gave up contributing here a few months ago because of the appalling system (?) of posting items, but actually knowing the man led me to watch the nomination of the recent death of Ian Redpath. He was nominated four days ago. The nomination has had nothing but universal support, but it is still not posted. Please don't respond with excuses for our poor overworked Admins. Just fix the bloody system!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you suggest, besides more active admins? I guess there could be a queue process. Also there is a tag {{@ITNA}} to ping the admins who usually post. Natg 19 (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked right through all the instructions and found nothing about that. I suggest obviously simple noms, like the one I'm describing, could be addressed in seconds, not four days. Maybe a triage approach. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't look at the article yet. But it looks like an admin just rejected posting of the RD for quality concerns. Natg 19 (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

A few days late! HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, many tags were added at 07:36 2 Dec.[1] —Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like the system worked as it should, then. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No, because no negative comments appeared here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

+1  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Instead of huffing and puffing here, why didn't you contact an Admin on their Talk page, if this was so urgent for you? Khuft (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't urgent for me. Don't misrepresent what I wrote. And don't try to make this about me. And how is one supposed to contact an Admin? Their posts aren't labelled as coming from Admins. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For not being about you, you sure are replying to your own thread an awful lot, not to mention drawing attention to your conduct by using invective ("pathetic", "appalling", "fix the bloody system", "excuses for our poor overworked admins") which isn't really needed to make your point. WP:CIV didn't cease to exist during the interim in which you "largely gave up contributing here". _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"And how is one supposed to contact an Admin? Their posts aren't labelled as coming from Admins." If you find it necessary to notify an admin, there are many sysops who regularly post on ITN. You've been around longer than I have, so I would imagine you recognize a few of their names by now, but if you do not, click on some user pages and there's a decent chance you'll find one rather quickly. Or find an entry that has been posted - the user who announced that it's been posted is probably an administrator.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Not "probably". IS an admin. ITN is fully protected, so only admins can post, or make changes to ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I should have italicized "probably" for effect, I'm not very good at being facetious  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems to still be missing several citations. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

ITNRD wording is posing problems now

It is important to keep in mind the original RFC (Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal); prior to this, we would be judging how "notable" (not the WP:N definition but the more common definition, is the person worthy of note) of how someone was as to post a RD blurb. The RFC was made so that it was to remove endless fights on this evaluation of being "notable" and that as long as there was a quality page about a person (or other formerly-living organism), and reported in the news. As such, when the language of the RFC was added, it purposely did not include the word "notable", in meaning that all RDs as long as there was a stand-along page about the person/living organism with appropirate quality. It should also be kept in mind this introduced the RD line, as previously all deaths that were covered were blurbs, which was a major source of disruption for ITN, and making this RD line was meant to be a nice clean shortcut to eliminate the bulk of these problems.
However, it should be stressed that to have a stand-alone article about a person/organism, that we expect the appropriate WP:N to have been passed as that is generally a necessary condition. (It can be an GNG or SNG, but all other policy and guidelines have to be met). This is particularly due when the death is the primary reason there are sources about the person, which is why BLP1E exists; a single event (including death) doesn't make a person notable. I'll also point to the discussion in the followup Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 57#Are animals eligible for the Recent Deaths section? where many shows support for including animals and other organizations as long as they were notable in the WP:N way.
Now within relatively short time frames we have had cases of where articles have been created on the death of the person/organism, and where the WP:N notability is not clearly obvious and BLP1E really applies (WP:ITNC#(Posted) RD: Brian Thompson, and a last month Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2024#(Posted) RD: Peanut the squirrel). We have had editors in both of these claim a few bad assumptions, such as (paraphrasing)

• If you think its not notable, take it to AFD - the problem with this is that notability depends on what sourcing can be found, and it can be bad faith simply to rush a newly created article to AFD as more sourcing could be found in time (but not in the seven-day cycle for ITN).
• ITNRD just say it needs to have a standalone article - That's not in the spirit of what the RFC actually was deciding, since it wasn't eliminating the WP:N requirement from RD articles, just that we shouldn't use real-world notability or significance for RDs of people that had standalone (read: WP:N-notable) articles.

We also can't help that other editors that are not active in ITN nor have deep understanding around BLP and NOTNEWS that will create articles without any checks on them. The system is weighed in favor of article creation (for good reason) but that should still mean that we at ITN need to be making sure that the article that is going to be shown in the ITN still meets all expected quality aspects, which includes notability (since that's related to sourcing, verifiability, neutrality and no original research). \
Now, it may be possible that there is a notable person that dies (in a non-eventful manner), that no one created an article for, and we rush to create and expand it, with clear indication of notability, from old and new sourcing; I can't remember when but I am pretty confident that I've seen editors dive in to create and improve such articles, and we'd post that. But since the RFC we have also rejected newly created articles on people/organisms that do not meet any GNG/SNG outside their death and are not improved to show that within the seven day period. This is why the claims "well, just take it to AFD to test notability" is really a bad approach because it can stymie good article development, and why ITN should be incorporating review of the WP:N-notability factors for a newly created article; we already do this for events as well, so there's zero reason such BLP-type articles should not also be reviewed the same way.
Further, holding what is being said, there is now a simple way to game ITN to include truely non-WP:N-notable individuals that at least have a mention of their death, since you just have to create an article that just barely passes a stub level, and saying "Well, its a standalone article, take it to AFD, then". That definitely wasn't the intent of the RFC.
To that point, we should consider rewording the ITNRD language to again reflect the RFC, but to be clear that we should evaluate notability as per WP:N (that being, significant coverage about that person, and per BLP1E, not coverage strictly related to the event), but once the basic demonstration of WP:N is met, then it doesn't matter how real-world notable they were, we would post the article in the RD line assuming all other quality factors are there. — Masem (t) 01:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My relatively simple proposal would be that !votes should consider (i.e. comment on) both the quality and the demonstration of WP-definition notability of the articles. Any !vote that doesn't effectively box-check "the article meets/doesn't meet GNG" would be given less consideration in a posting decision. And still no need for comments on the (non-WP definition) notability of the RD subject. Kingsif (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

ITN is not a place to debate article notability. Despite your concerns, that's literally why talk pages and AfD exist. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That completely misses the point of what I wrote.
To be clear, rushing to AFD what is perceived to be be a non notable article that has freshly created is frowned upon and considered bad faith. It makes no sense in challenging an RD at ITN of a freshly created article to go flag it for AFD. But it is our place to make an assessment of quality, and notability aspects are a part of that. If the consensus agree that by the time the seven day period is up that the newly created article doesn't show notability via the GNG or SNG, then we simply don't post it, and the fate of the article continues as a wholly sepearate step. We should not be conflating the ITN and AFD processes as this suggests. — Masem (t) 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Masem that we ought to reword ITN/RD for this purpose. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

... it can be bad faith simply to rush a newly created article to AFD as more sourcing could be found in time (but not in the seven-day cycle for ITN): "Bad faith" is the wrong term. AGF that the AfDer is trying to counter recentism and WP:NOTNEWS, where WP:LASTING impact is premature to assess. The disadvantage with having the notability discussion at ITN is that it has limited visibility. Subject matter experts on the article topic often aren't involved with ITNC, but would have (better?) insight on the topic's notability. However, the issue is that any AfD on a recent trending topic is very likely to end in "no consensus", if not "keep", as participants are likely biased by recentism. I'm not sure if there is an elegant solution, but these cases are also rare. —Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bagumba. The effect of this proposal is to setup a shadow AfD at ITN without the same visibility or accountability for abuse. You'll end up with walls of text erected citing GNG without anyone following through with an AfD nomination. As for Brian Thompson, that assassination should have been a blurb for a story a week later that is still headline news. --173.38.117.86 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion archived w/o decision

We recently had a discussion to remove Bundesliga from ITN/R, and in my opinion it received clear consensus in support before being archived. I was the nominator so I shouldn’t be the one to adjudicate, but can an uninvolved party adjudicate or at least revive the discussion? Thanks. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please can you unarchive the discussion. While I do not have specifics of this discussion, an admin can be tagged with a request for action. Ktin (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Bzweebl did this themselves on 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC). That seems to be fine with me, as there was clear consensus for the removal. Will make a mention back at the discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Article Classification

Greetings. On the WP:DYK project, there is a bot DYKToolsBot that runs against each nomination and adds a tag that classifies each nomination. e.g., American biographies. Does someone here know how that classification is done? More importantly, does someone know how we can run such as classifier against the nominations here? Would be a great idea to get some aggregate statistics against our nominations / postings. I am tagging usernamekiran to see if this is something that can be done against our current archives. Thoughts? I have asked a similar question at the talk page of the DYK project. Ktin (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ktin: Hi. I'm currently on mobile (and for a few days more), but the bot's source code is published on, so in theory, we should be able to find it out. But what exactly do you want to do? Courtesy ping to RoySmith, operator of DYKToolsBot. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there is no urgency for this one. But, sometime back we were looking at some aggregate analytics for WP:ITN and specifically WP:ITNRD postings. I am thinking something on the lines of Article name - country (American, Canadian etc.) - category (e.g. arts, sports, politics etc.) Ktin (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I had already answered this at WT:DYK#DYK Bot / Article Classification. RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

what about the abu dhabi grand prix

the final race of the f1 season deserves to be in the news, surely because of how important it was for the f1 constructors title 80.64.63.172 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:ITNR: The Drivers' champion is posted, and the Constructors' only mentioned alongside a Drivers' nomination. No separate post if won at different times. See WPT:ITN#Remove constructors title. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I know nothing about Formula One. Sadly, Formula One World Championship does not readily explain how a champion is determined. —Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

And the winner seems to have already been posted a few weeks ago.[2] —Bagumba (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Formula One World Championship says "A point-system is used at Grands Prix to determine two annual World Championships: one for the drivers, and one for the constructors...". But there are two constructors -- the chassis and the engine. So, this year the champion constructors were McLaren and Mercedes. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Quantum Chip

Is there an article on this topic / announcement from earlier today? I came here to see if it was a topic for the homepage / mainpage. But, I could not even find an article on the topic. Am I searching incorrectly? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Closest would likely be quantum computing, assuming we're talking about this [3] (and published in Nature here [4]). — Masem (t) 13:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is now an entry for Google Willow at List of quantum processors, but no standalone article yet. Stephen 23:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)