Wikipedia talk:In the news - Wikipedia

I'd like to encourage discussion on improving the way we post the Nobel Prize winners. Our standard practice established long time ago is to post a separate blurb for each field, which often makes ITN a Nobel Prize ticker during the second week of October. I can list the following options for improvement that come to my mind (including a status quo):

• Option 1: Do nothing and leave it as it is with a separate blurb for each field.
• Option 2: Combine the winners in multiple fields into one blurb.
• Option 3: Keep only one blurb for the most recently announced field that has replaced the previous one and add a link to Other Nobel Prizes in parentheses after the blurb (see how it is done on the German Wikipedia).
• Option 4: Add Nobel Prizes as a separate item to ongoing with expanded update in the year's article that includes the contributions for which the prizes were awarded after the names of their recipients.

As four out of the six prizes this year have already been awarded, we can start off from next year in case we agree to change something.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Option 1. Option 2 just combines everything into one large blurb, which doesn't really solve anything. Option 3 assumes timely postings which doesn't always happen. Option 4 would make Ongoing too ungainly. I don't think there is a problem to solve here. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1 I don't see a problem here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1 If it was only 1 person per aware, Option 2 might work, but often the Nobels are jointly awarded to 2 or even 3, and then the blurb gets impossibly long. --Masem (t) 20:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 4, sort of. I in general oppose nominating each Nobel Prize as a separate ITN piece for the same reasons we don't do the same for the winners of the Olympic Games, or the listing of UNESCO sites. We can simply reduce that to an ongoing event about giving out Nobel Prizes, because anyway awarding Nobel Prizes in each of the disciplines takes some time (a week or so). I don't think we need a separate blurb for each Nobel Prize laureate unless a good reason can be provided to make an exception for this particular person/these particular people.

As for the link choice for ongoing event, oddly I'd choose the relevant template so that people can choose the people (or disciplines) from there. It gives just enough quick information: who, in which area, the countries the people represent, as well as the choice to move to the earlier years. The specific reason for which the award was given should be somewhere in the lead for each Nobel laureate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment I don't like option 3 because there is no guarantee that the previous award articles were ready before the most recent award articles. Option 2 doesn't really save space. Considering that it took most of a week for the Olympics to be in good enough state this year to be posted, I don't think option 4 works either. I am not sure that I like the status quo, but awards will get posted or not based on how updated the articles of the recipients are. This year we just have a couple laureates whose articles were pretty bad to start with. Rockphed (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1. Though not the best solution, I think the current solution is the best that we can. Unless there is a quick way to create a demarcation and listing (tabular or otherwise) of categories and winners against each of them. Ktin (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1. Even the situation right now shows that posting all of them is not excessive. Physics has not (yet?) been posted because the articles are not ready, and there are other items than just the prizes. With a decent turnaround, we have a diverse ITN. But even if the week is otherwise slow, we have some things to post. I don't see a problem. --Tone 19:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1 is the only practical option. Not every prize is announced every year, and we don't know until they have all been announced. Also I think it is a rare spotlight for many fields. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1; they don't all come out on the same day so its fine to have them all be separate blurbs. Many of the topics are also never posted to ITN so a short showcase is good.  Nixinova   T   C   22:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1 It's a newsworthy item in a field that is both significant and rarely in the news. I have no problem with the ITN box consisting entirely of Nobel Prizes for one week, because the Nobel Prizes are a big deal, and there's a dearth of science the rest of the year. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1 if they did all get posted, it'd be a bit much, but typically only about 3 of them do. Having 3 Nobel Prize hooks in a short space of time is no different to when we sometimes have many disaster or sports hooks on ITN, as many ITNR events happened at the same time. Joseph2302 (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 4 or a template similar to the one we initially used for Covid. This year is an exception, but I prefer not to have a bunch of related items clogging up the template. -- Calidum 00:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1 per above. Spencer^T•C 19:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Option 4, sort of. In Sweden, the time of the prize announcements is known as Nobelprisveckan "Nobel Prize Week". We kind of bunch them all up into one annual event. The link proposed by Szmenderowiecki seems like a good choice to me. The Nobel Prize Museum advertise it as Nobel Calling Stockholm. I think the Nobel Prize receives a disproportionate amount of attention these days. When it was instituted, prizes was as a way to help important research get published and shared. We hardly have the same issues these days. cart-Talk 10:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm sympathetic to concerns that were brought up in the "William Shatner goes to space" nomination in ITN/C, about how ITN - a page that purports to display topics and articles that are "in the news" - is not actually covering the news. Granted, this is not a news ticker, but our high barrier for entry in terms of significance has been a recurring complaint among both newcomers and regular contributors to ITN/C. This has always been a subjective exercise that relies on local consensus, although there is some level of precedence involved as well (though two wrongs don't make a right, etc.). What would it take to lower that barrier of entry? WaltCip-(talk) 12:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

"But... Kim Karadashian's vagina!!!" Howard the Duck (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Said only you. Once again, great insight. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was just actually thinking we need something under significance to point out that ITN doesn't really accept (based on past consensus) stories covering "popular" topics, even if they are widely covered by news media, as this is part of where our function as an encyclopedia (to cover a global range of topics with enduring factors) compared to newspapers (to cover anything they can to fill 24/7 channels) drastically differs. To me, nearly all "popular" topics (those in the TOP25) because they are in the news are things that are better suited for a DYK-style approach (eg Shatner being the oldest space passenger, or Squid Game being Netflix's most watched show, etc.). We also have to remember that Portal:Current events is linked from the ITN, and that will cover these topics (Shatner's flight covered in Oct 13's entry appropriately). Perhaps to that end, the fact that the current main page template masks that current events link with "Ongoing" as a type of Easter Egg may not be helpful - I'd think I'd rather just see "Other current events" to link to that portal so that topics that don't make it to ITN still will be one link away. --Masem (t) 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• So, one of the things that is the Wikipedia ethos is "it's not what you believe or can argue, it's what you can show through reliable sources." That is, we don't care about reasons. We don't care about beliefs. Everyone has reasons for things. What we care about it what can you demonstrate through reliable sources. As long as we define the types of sources (such as what sorts of news articles, what sorts of news sources, etc.) we generally look to to determine significance (I.E. not celebrity gossip or the like), it's very simple to decide significance. We don't really have to even care why such sources are covering a story. Just that they are should be enough to know that a topic is in the news. Our primary concern should always be is the article of sufficient quality. We should not consider the ITN ticker to exist to tell people about news. We should consider the ITN ticker to be a place to go to get more information on stories people are already hearing about outside of Wikipedia. We assess that by looking at what high quality, serious news sources are reporting. It's the easy part of our job. The hard part is assessing and improving articles so they are of a high enough quality to put on the main page. --Jayron32 14:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• It's seldom used, but WP:ITNCRIT already offers an alternative to "significance": Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion. However, it doesn't seem the Shatner blurb would meet that either.—Bagumba (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I can safely say I have never seen an instance in which a less significant article is posted to the main page on the basis of being well-written or even a GA. That may technically exist as criteria, but it's purely theoretical and rarely seen in practice. That may need to be refactored. WaltCip-(talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  It is rare, but it's usually a borderline significant topic that some people say post for notability, while a few other people just say it's a quality article that's timely, so go ahead.—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here, at least not yet. We need to better abide by the stated purposes of ITN. The #1 stated purpose is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." US networks interrupted their programming to report on Shatner's flight. They don't do that lightly and yet people say "it's not important" and not enduring. If it's not enduring encyclopedic coverage it should be proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Not really, space flights are generally accepted as notable by Wikipedia. That Shatner was one of a bunch of other tourists that went up (for less than ten minutes!) is somewhat trivial. Nothing deserves to be deleted, we don't have William Shatner in space or anything, not that I'm aware of... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Which US networks? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I think the "content they are likely to be searching for" clause is now being (regularly) conflated with pageviews or WP:TOP25-style content. It is relatively easy to confuse the two I suppose, but if were simply to post on this clause alone, we'd be a US news ticker, posting all manner of triviality (like old man in space), simply because "people are looking for it" and "we have a half-decent article covering the event". The reason the community consensus is vital is to add a checkpoint in to remind everyone this is an encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Twitter or some other unrefined trivia publisher. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  It seems funny that you keep bringing up an article we didn't post on the main page as an example of where relying on reliable sources went awry. --Jayron32 16:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Which article did I bring up? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Oh, that's right. I didn't. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Nope. Changing the bar won't help here. The thing with Shatner is that some editors felt that it was more important than an election in Yugoslavia, and some editors felt it was less important than "Squid Game becomes Netflix's most popular original show." User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• We have guidelines that say quality updates are the point, because we are trying to encourage people to build the encyclopedia. We can accept a minor update if the event is really significant, but we can also post a less important event with a bigger update. Take the Boat Race for instance. There is a big difference of opinion on significance, but the quality of update there is undeniable. It is completely possible to compose a new article or make a truly significant update to a current article for an otherwise "trivial" event and get it posted. You may find it difficult to find enough info in RS for truly trivial events to populate a significant update, but this is a feature not a bug. If you can make this look like this, I'll vote for you. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I want to start a separate discussion section for Masem's recommendation from above. I like this one and I support it. Should be a small and easy fix.

Context: Portal:Current events is currently linked from the ITN box, but, is currently linked underneath "Ongoing" making it almost seem like an Easter egg.

Suggestion: A clearly labeled link from ITN to "Other current events" will aid discovery of the Current Events portal.

Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Support doesn't seem unreasonable and might help the news tickerites chill out for a few months. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support - oh yes, look at that. I didn't even know there was a link there. Could be in a much more useful place.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support, but note that if Current Events gets more traffic, people may need to watch out for vandalism on the subpages that transclude onto it, as they are mostly, if not all, unprotected.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support Didn't this used to be the case? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Yes. We already have this behaviour when there are no ongoing events, a link to Other recent events appears next to Nominate an article, but, because we've had Covid in ongoing for months, it hasn't appeared for a long time. Also, when there are no recent deaths, the Recent deaths link moves down to the same row, but it's unlikely to happen now, given the assumption of notability that we have now. So all we're asking here is to always show the link, and possible change it to Other current events. Stephen 22:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. As next steps, in my view, one of the following two options can be tried. Option 1: Replace the Ongoing word with Other current events. Option 2: Introduce a new line with Other current events phrase linking to to current events portal. Option 1 might be the simplest to execute. Ktin (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Just when I remember last looking at the template, if there are no ongoing events, the "Ongoing" label changes to something else which complicates that option. I would recommend this Option 2 here, a fixed "Other Current Events" which could be on the same line that "Nominate an Article" sits on, and would be non-disruptive to other parts of the template. --Masem (t) 01:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

    @Masem:. If I am reading Stephen's note correct, it seems like when there are no ongoing events, the current template will default to adding a link to Other recent events next to Nominate an article. So, we should be covered there. So, when there are ongoing events, just changing that label to Other current events will solve the problem. Yes, in this case the link will not be in the same level as Nominate an article, but, renaming also solves the problem of what do with the Ongoing link if in case we go to a new line for all scenarios. Ktin (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• This is indeed a WP:EGG link when we have Ongoing items - especially as few items on P:CE are 'ongoing'. It's not exactly clear what is being proposed to fix this, but I would support modifying Template:In the news/footer so a link to 'current events' appears in the same row as 'nominate an article'. I oppose adding a whole new line for it. Modest Genius ^talk 18:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Request. Please can an Admin read the consensus and either update the text on the "ongoing" link OR add text on the same row as "nominate an article"? Thank. Ktin (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed recently, eg at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Gary_Paulsen, two related trends: (1) editors frequently spin off lengthy -ographies of RDs into standalone -ography articles; and (2) other editors regard this as bad form where the original -ography was unsourced or poorly sourced. I can sort of see the objection if the thought is that editors are trying to game the system by getting rid of a poorly sourced portion of an article so that the remaining biography is ready to post. But I also don't really understand this because the new -ography article can simply be tagged to oblivion without forcing editors to go through the incredibly dull (and, IMO, mostly pointless) work of sourcing the -ography (to a ref that is almost always a site like AllMusic that's not much better than a database) before the article can be posted as an RD. I figured it would be best to settle this in some broader forum so a consensus on whether WP:SPLITting -ographies pre-RD is OK. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Basically, even ignoring ITN, an unsourced -ogrophy violates BLP. Splitting it off just to make the RD ready to post doesn't solve the BLP issue that existed before. Its fine if a reliable site like Allmusic is used (in contrast to IMDB which is user-generated) but it just needs to be done, split or not. --Masem (t) 02:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comment Most recent case I recall was Michael K. Williams' nom. Seems to come up at least every month or two.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Unacceptable For many candidate at RD, the 'ography sections are the reason they have a Wikipedia page at all. Actors, musicians, photographers, writers , etc. are known for their works. Incidental episodes of celebrity might also fill out their BLP, but those episodes arise because they have works. Excluding their list of works for the sake of posting an RD (and then leaving the SPLIT to languish) turns RD into little more than a superficial human interest obituary. Fine for People, but rather poor form for an encyclopedia.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• The road to hell

1. If a person is famous and in the news, the readers will be reading their articles regardless
2. If a person is obscure, then posting their names at RD isn't going to make much difference because it's just a name with no context
3. WP:V has always made it quite clear that sources are only required for quotations or facts that are controversial. We do not require a source to say that Robert Vaughn appeared in The Man from Uncle – one of many stars who was not listed at RD because their list of credits was too long.
4. If people are actively destroying content for this reason then RD is disruptive and should be terminated forthwith.
5. Our policy is clear: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them."
6. See also bureaucratic inertia, busywork, jobsworth, red tape, &c.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• • WP:V requires sourcing for all material outside of the most non-contestible material like "The sky is blue". For a typical filmography, while leading roles are rarely the problem (these can easily be verified at official databases and most movie reviews), it is the minor and cameo roles in smaller or niche films and TV shows that are the part that are far more difficult to verify, and that's where most of these lists break down in terms of sources, and WP:V 100% applies to requiring sources there. It is just a long-term problem that editors that work on these types of pages have typically forgone sourcing in adding roles and works when crafting these pages in the past so that when they hit ITN/RD, it becomes a marathon to try to fix in time, but that's not ITN's problem, those articles are BLP-violations without those sources throughout. --Masem (t) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Unacceptable these should only be spun off if the article is too long, and the standalone article is acceptable as an independent article, as per WP:SPLIT. Moving the content just because it's unsourced so that the article can be on RD is not acceptable, and we should be applying a zero tolerance policy to this gaming of the system. And, contrary to the comments above, the problem is editors gaming a system, not the RD system itself. RD is a simple process- all you have to do is source the article for it to be on the front page, it isn't that difficult and people trying to take shortcuts to the most simple process for main page content is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Consider the OP's case of Gary Paulsen. This author wrote over 200 books and so listing them all would be contrary to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Most of our readers only read the lead of an article. Few of them will read through a list of 200 book titles. And just about nobody will read citations for those 200 titles. See diminishing returns. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • We should have a selected bibliography then for e.g. just the most famous/notable ones. I've never understood why we need to list 100+ books written by someone, or all their film/tv appearances. If someone wants that, there are database websites for that. But moving it all onto another unsourced page just to try and fufil RD requirements is not the solution to the problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • The problem is that people are treating this as a matter of box ticking rather than doing what's actually important – fact checking. I checked a detail of the Gary Paulsen story – that his mother beat a man to death. This had a citation but I found that it didn't stand up. Citations ≠ accuracy. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • To be fair, the editor that spun it off did so hours before the RD was nominated, and has not commented at the ITNC nom either. Some works are already mentioned in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • If one spins out the -ographies, then a selected works should still be left and that still needs to be sourced. --Masem (t) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
        • @Masem: Is mention in prose scattered throughout the biography sufficient, or do you expect a formal bibliography entry for each select work?—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
          • Technically, that should be okay, but if the prose is already sourced, it should be trivial using named references to repeat the sourcing. A larger issue with "selected works" that I generally have seen is the fighting by editors of what are the representative selective works, and here is usually where on death for an actor, it may be wiser to pull an obit that lists the dozen-some films they were most notable for, if that's possible, so that we're not using editor preference for that list. Either way, sourcing that list should be trivial because that sourcing should already exist in the body somewhere. --Masem (t) 12:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Comment I tried this already, it went nowhere --LaserLegs (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  No comment on the merits of either proposal, but this current one is specifically about spun out -ographies, while the earlier one was about any spin out.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• A BLP that spins off the -ography is fine if the prose covers their works sufficiently in the view of the consensus of editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Moot - creation of content forks is not something which is within the remit of ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  In practice, however, RD noms where an -ography gets spun out (often?) can held up with charges of gaming the system.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  What I'm saying is that this place has (nor should have) any say whatsoever on when elements of an article get spun out. It's nothing to do with ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I disagree, WP:In the news#Article quality says that Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. I would say that removing an entire bibliography/filmography, and leaving nothing in the article leaves that article incomplete, and is omitting a major item. If people want to split it out, at least leave a summary in the main article of most important works. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  You're absolutely right, but that mandate you quote to evaluate quality covers all sorts of things enumerated in policy or not. Too much focus in this conversation is on the intent and timing of the fork. A fork is not in and of itself an issue of concern, but a fork could leave the main article insufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  If editors are spinning out an -ography for a bio page that is far below any critical SIZE issue for length (even considering that the -ograph is not part of the included readable prose), just to avoid the sourcing issue while the bio is up at ITNC, that's a problem of sweeping the dirt under the rug and does not represent our best work. That absolutely makes it our problem. --Masem (t) 13:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Not at all. Admins should simply not promote articles whose content has been unsuitably. The spin-off should simply be restored back to the main article by any reasonably competent editor. This is not an ITNC issue, this is a Wikipedia issue that happens to be one method to try to circumvent quality standards at a project page. If we can't trust admins to exercise judgement in this regard then perhaps we should re-visit who is able to modify the main page content. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. In my mind, there are two categories of articles that are relevant to this conversation. Category 1: Where the prose of the article references the subject's career in sufficient depth. e.g. Vivek (actor), S P Balasubramaniam. Category 2: Where the prose of the article (by itself) does not do any justice to the number of works. e.g. Nedumudi Venu. I come closest in my thinking to user:GreatCaesarsGhost here in that for Category 1, I can see why a spinoff might be justified, allegations of gaming the system aside. For articles in category 2, either the tabular listing of works stays within the article or the prose is sufficiently beefed up to reference the works. That aside, having seen this process for sometime now, not using IMDB has led to the usage of other sub-par sourcing sites.link I also agree that this is not WP:ITN's problem per se. But, unfortunately, when it comes to us, we hold the mantle in cleaning up these articles (and rightly so) if we have to bring to homepage levels of hygiene. Ktin (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Then perhaps add an instruction to the promotion guidelines which recommend an admin check that unnecessary content forks haven't been made as a result of the ITNC. That'll do it. There's literally no other remit this project has than that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Right. In my view, even that is not needed. Forks imo are not inappropriate (though I have not done that so far) for articles that fall under category 1. Forks should not be attempted for articles that fall under category 2. Just keeping that information with us as we review articles should suffice. Ktin (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: I agree with TRM, content policies are outside ITN's remit. Whether lists of works should be separate articles or not is the preserve of WP:SPLIT. Our job is to assess whether the article meets the ITN criteria, not all other Wikipedia policies. Unsourced material on a BLP can be deleted, or moved to the talk page until sources are found to support it. Simple lists of work wouldn't count as updated content or article prose anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 18:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  But there is something to be said when such an -ography is purposely pulled out of an RD while it is at ITNC (or just prior to) to bury the sourcing problems with the ography, if there is no good reason to split the ography out otherwise (as set by SIZE/SPLIT). If we are specifically talking RDs, then the quality of the RD article, including removal of material that would otherwise be essential to the article and a split is not warranted by size, is within our remit. --Masem (t) 18:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  If the article is so incomplete that it doesn't meet the ITN criteria, that's for ITN/C to assess. As I mentioned, simple list sections don't constitute quality prose anyway, so I don't think an otherwise-acceptable RD would be incomplete just because it didn't have an -ography section. A bad -ography can sink a nomination, but unreferenced lists of works should be deleted per BLP, immediately solving the problem. Modest Genius ^talk 18:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Proposal

Should we close nominations that are nominated way too early just to get the nominator credit? Such as 2021 Japanese general election, nominated before the polls have closed with no blurb- this has happened for multiple elections recently. Or sports finals which were nominated before the match had actually finished (with no blurb suggested). These seem like disruptive ways for users seeking to increase their number of ITN nomination credits, and is clearly gaming of the system in my view. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think we do so already, at least sometimes. I suppose that there could be circumstances where an early nom is appropriate. Elections are commonly nominated on the day of the election because the occurrence of the election is in the news. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I consider events on ITNR already nominated by default. No nom credits need to be given out. To get any ITN credit, one must update the articles. However, I do not find the premature posting on ITN/C disruptive. It's nice to be reminded what will be coming up. It's not really necessary, but it does no harm in my view. --PFHLai (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

You've repeatedly said that nominators are posting early just to get a credit, without any evidence - talk about assuming bad faith. It could equally be so there is time to get outstanding issues with the article sorted ahead of posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

You can't fix an election article with no results, so nominating it to encourage people to update it doesn't seem like a valid reason to me. There's no reason to start an ITN nomination until there's a blurb that could actually be published i.e. the result of an election/sports event is confirmed. Speculation isn't acceptable, and I see no valid reason for these early nominations. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

If we're expecting the "conclusion" of the event that is otherwise ITNR within a few hours (not a whole day, more like 2-4 hr in that range) after the event has started, and the idea is that to get eyes to review the rest of the prose on the page short of what can be added after the event closes as a preliminary review, I see no reason to close these. I would agree that if the article before its conclusion is in a really bad shape (even considering the missing info), that might be a reason to close early, but if all that's lacking is the final summary with sources and a few ITN eyes to review, this is not an abuse of the process. --Masem (t) 19:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

If a result is likely in a few hours, nominating could be reasonable. If you're nominating it 6 hours before the polling stations close, like one election nomination recently, then that's not any benefit at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It also depends on knowledge of how fast the results come in. I can only speak to the US, but we know that as soon as polls close on the East Coast, that networks are going to start compiling results, and thus by the time Alaska and Hawaii are done polling, the result is usually fixed (this though is not assured), so nominating when the East Coast closes is fair enough. But not mid-day. I can't speak to Japan's election approach to know if 6 hr before the polls close is reasonable but that sounds too early. --Masem (t) 20:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment nominating ITN/R items a few hours to a day early might be helpful to get eyeballs on it for tagging and quality issues. Instead lets just not do ITN credit for ITN/R items since the nom is procedural anyway. Still do credit for article updates though. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• ITN credits seem to be worthless so I suppose that people make such nominations because they can. It seems most like the tendency of forum posters to claim "a first" for being the first comment in a thread. Anyway, doing a nomination properly requires the following work:

1. Suggesting a correctly formatted blurb
2. Suggesting an appropriate picture
3. Identifying creators and updaters
4. Identifying some good news sources
5. Getting the links to all these things right
6. Addressing issues like ITN/R
7. Making an appropriate comment

If someone gets all that right, they should be thanked for taking the trouble. If the nomination is sloppy and incomplete then the choice is between fixing it and reverting it. Each case should be judged on its merits. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment - The Japanese election nomination was mine, it was not done for credit but for encyclopedic coverage that will no doubt be relevant soon. This was not really that early, it was nominated the day of the event (whereas the article was created 4 years ago and could have been nominated days earlier) and the only thing really that needs to be done is to drop the results into a table. Accusing a nominator of looking just for credit is bad faith, whereas the point is to bring the subject up for awareness and draw any new volunteers who may be interested to working on the article. Now we will have 2 redundant nominations instead of 1 when people could have just been patient and waited before jumping to close it. - Indefensible (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

On another note, results for the event seem to have come in, so the nomination should probably be submitted by someone again now. - Indefensible (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since no one else bothered to, went ahead and renominated the entry. - Indefensible (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Currently at ITNC is the 2021 Japanese general election, and previously was the German federal election. These two articles highlight a problem with WP:V that is similar to the WP:SPIN issue that was discussed recently here. Essentially, tables are "sourced" to a secondary article not being reviewed for the Main Page in contravention to V:Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources.

In reference to the Japanese article, the section Opinion polls contains no real prose (what is present is more a caption) and two unsourced charts. These charts are, however, sourced in different article not being reviewed for the Main Page (and would never get posted). There is a helpful link in this article to the other article. My understanding is that WP:V strongly suggests that sourcing should be in-article, and the Main Page should feature high quality articles, thus articles under consideration here should have entirely in-article sourcing. I have not yet spot checked these tables to see if they actually do contain the information presented in the Main Page candidate.

A more troublesome example is the German election article. The table under Competing parties is totally without sourcing and appears to be WP:OR. Worse still, the table under Political parties and candidates is "sourced" to another wiki article, which is in turn circularly sourced right back to that WP:OR table. The final problem is that this made it to the Main Page.

1. Should articles on the Main Page require in-article sourcing?
2. If so, and if sourcing tables becomes cumbersome, should tables be removed from election articles?

130.233.213.141 (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply