Wikipedia talk:In the news

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

ITNR archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Topic diversity

Just a perspective from a regular reader and former occasional editor.

In the News is dominated by the same few topics: deaths (especially mass casualty incidents), politics (especially elections) and sporting events. Nothing against these topics, but are we overlooking equally significant news in other topics that may be interesting to readers?

The entry about the boycotts in Southeast Europe was a refreshing change, because such economic developments have great impact on societies. Once the Trump tariffs take effect, they will upend global supply chains and thus deserve a blurb. If a Fortune Global 500 company goes out of business or is acquired, this affects their thousands of employees and millions of customers, with further reprecussions if it is systemically important to its industry or country.

Some product releases have an immediate and massive impact that reliable sources expect to be long-term. Three obvious examples are:

Pokemon Go, the first mainstream augmented reality app, with players involved in numerous incidents and wider trends.
The first Covid-19 vaccine, developed in record time and deployed across the world to enable recovery from the pandemic.
ChatGPT, groundbreaking generative artificial intelligence that reshaped how people write, learn and work.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should also highlight newsworthy events in the natural sciences and mathematics. 119.74.161.80 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I started a discussion a few weeks ago regarding WP:PROMO as it relates to blurb posts. Feel free to leave your thoughts in that discussion as well. I do believe at the very least that business-related news is underrepresented at ITN and we could really do well to change that. For what it's worth, the issue ITN runs into with scientific news is the timeline between a discovery and the publication of a scientific discovery. Usually we want to wait for a study to be verified, but sometimes these stories fall through the cracks later on, or get hung up for other reasons. Feel free to suggest some changes to ITN blurb consideration overall though. We've been discussing this a lot lately. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, if a business news event has an immediate (and expected to be long-term) large-scale impact on the wider society, then what matters is the blurb and article cover it in a neutral and encyclopediac manner. If we refuse to blurb it due to unreasonable concerns over promotion, we are doing our readers a disservice. Thanks for explaining the issues with scientific news. One idea is to complement ITN/R with a page that explains ITNSIGNIF for different topics (like what makes a mass casualty event significant enough for ITN) and for certain topics (like scientific topics), getting more input from experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.241.172 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that with most business news, its hard to tell of any immediate long term impact. What can have impact are multibillion merger plans (like with did for Disney/Fox or Microsoft/Activision), even with the understanding that things may change before the merger is complete, since usually the market moves on the announcement and not the closure. We've also covered major market depressions that last for multiple days, but tend to ignore short term ones (like the one that hit AI companies with that Chinese AI news from a few weeks ago). Masem (t) 23:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The elephant in the room currently is the new Trump administration and its radical attempts to reshape the domestic and international order. It's bizarre that ITN is preferring to cover politics in Liechtenstein instead but that's getting preference because of WP:ITN/R. That list of guaranteed significance distorts ITN's balance but it's hard for anything else to get a consensus in open discussion. If you want more variety, then you have to show up, nominate varied topics and !vote for them. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General elections in small countries are absolutely newsworthy, as their governance impacts a few thousand to a few million people. ITN should not have a systemic bias towards large or Western countries. I would fully support blurbs about Trump administration policies with significant global impact, such as the tariffs (which will upend global supply chains) and shutting down USAID (which will worsen problems in poor countries). Perhaps we should consider stricter criteria for mass casualty incidents and sporting events, but the bigger issue is what topics ITN is neglecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.241.172 (talk • contribs)

Stories that involve politics outside the election cycle are very difficult to include because we do not have any sense of scope or impact. Like the USAID situation, we can speculate to long term impacts but until those happen it's difficult to claim significance over other similar political stories. The tariffs and trade war is different since the impact was immediate (Canada's own tariffs) hence it's posting. Masem (t) 23:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Wikipedia editors should not engage in speculation, but can Wikipedia consider expert predictions and analysis about the likely impact of an event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.159.11 (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be a clear, widespread aspect, with established precedent for it. For example the overturning of Roe v. Wade at the time was widely projected to drastically affect abortion rights with states poised to have laws come into effect with it. As such, that's a clear political-based story that made sense to post. Same with the current trade war. The elimination of the USA Is funding, not so much even though any sources postulated on the impaxt. Masem (t) 23:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent IP contributions removed edits on ITNC

On a phone so I cannot easily untangle the mess created by the IP but several comments on other moms have been lost and there's too many intermeduaye changes that are appropriate to revert back. — Masem (t) 17:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been addressed? Ktin (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small tweak/clarification to ITNRD

The second bullet at Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths#Notes currently reads:

Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.

Following Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2025#(Posted) RD: Ariel and Kfir Bibas (which was posted despite the lack of clear consensus) exposed that some editors misunderstand what this was intended to cover (speaking as the person who originally wrote it based on extensive contemporary discussions about ITNRD) I propose that we tweak it to:

Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant biographical coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis. or
Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on a biography article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.

My very minor preference is for the former, but either way the intent is to try and make it clear that RD is for featuring biographies not articles about events. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First revision is fine with me, and I agree we should be clear that we want biographic coverage. Masem (t) 02:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have to say that I don't quite understand the desire to wikilawyer this. RDs are minor: they're line items that will rotate off the main page in a day or two. Moreover, in the linked discussion above there were confirmed recent deaths (recent in the sense that the deaths were only widely reported on recently; we've made exceptions for that in the past) and an article that directly covers the deaths + the events that led to those deaths. Is it a standard RD? No. Does that really matter in the grand scheme of things? Also no. So let's not overcomplicate things. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think clarification is needed, one way or another, based on this example. In the case of an individual (not part of a group), WP:ITNRD requires a biographical Wikipedia article Nominations involving pages like "Death of < person>" have been rejected because of the lack of broad biographical details on the person, not just their death. So it seems it should be consistent with members of groups, whether similar biographical coverage is expected or not on a nominated group page. —Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, either we should require biographical coverage for members of groups or not require it for individuals. My preference is for the former. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've never really had people nominating members of a band, have we? I think editors have effectively always treated it like the page needed biographical details. There wouldn't be any real changes just formalizing this, which seems to have been reinforced at #Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas (below). —Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall off the top of my head if musicians have been posted this way, but comedian Barry Chuckle, one half of the Chuckle Brothers who biography is covered on the article about the duo, was posted in August 2018. I don't think they are the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I was unclear, but I meant nominating band members based on a band page without their biographical info. Barry Chuckle arguably has the minimum at Chuckle Bros. —Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Shiri, Ariel and Kfir Bibas nomination is the first one I'm aware of where there has been a nomination for RfD where there is no biographical content that has got any support for posting as RD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support first bullet. Seems to be the de facto practice, reinforced by the Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas pull. It doesn't make sense to have looser standards for a member of a group than an individual with non-biographical coverage in a "death of <person>" page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas

Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas should not be listed under recent deaths, as the time of their deaths is estimated as having taken place in November 2023, and this estimate is undisputed. The only thing that is recent is that their bodies were recently released after being held hostage since their deaths. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note Normally this should be discussed at the nomination, but it's already been archived. It seems fine to continue this here (instead of being bureaucratic, unarchiving, and forcing a re-post there. Note also that there was "pull"-related comments there too.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone, @Schwede66: for your attention. – robertsky (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that they should be pulled. There are several issues with the posting, including the date of death (not "recent" by any sense of the term) and the fact that they don't have an actual biographical article (instead, only an article about the family's kidnapping). For something in such a contentious topic, I believe that we should be more careful, and making an exception to highlight them specifically might look like we're taking sides in this conflict directly on the main page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Chaotic Enby, see also my comments in the archived discussion about why they don't meet the RD criteria and also why there was not a consensus to post. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with pulling, for the reasons given, and also because two people were kicked out who had been shown only for about 10 hours. No rush to show these, if at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled - I think it was borderline whether it had consensus in the first place; given the numbers and the concerns raised in the discussion about both the long period since the deaths and the fact that the victims are covered by a group article... probably I wouldn't have called a consensus there myself, but it was reasonable. In any case, given the additional voices by The Mountain of Eden, Cahotic Endby and Gerda Arendt in the discussion above, favouring a pull, I think it definitely lacks consensus now so I've removed it. Courtesy ping @Schwede66:. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that based on the discussion above, the item had to be pulled. I’d done it myself had I seen it. Schwede 66 21:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard, is the discovery of mummified remains a RD? We've posted them in the past. Nfitz (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a blurb candidate. RD? Is there an example? —Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the remains are of an identifiable person and they have a biography article about them as an individual or significant biographical coverage about them on an article about a group they were part of, and their death was announced within the last 7 days then they are eligible for RD if there is no concurrent blurb. If one or more of those criteria are not met then it's a blurb or nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense - I should have known that. Um ... Thryduulf ... Gene Hackman. Hmm, I wonder what date of death is in the article ... Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exact death date doesn't matter for RD purposes, what matters is when the death was first reported (in reliable sources). For Hackman that was the 26th, so he is well within the 7 days. As an example Rolf Harris was posted to RD in May 2023. He died on the 10th but his death wasn't reported until the 23rd, it was the latter date that determined his eligibility for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there's extreme cases like Fritz Peterson, who died in October 2023 but wasn't reported until April 2024. The takeaway for ITN page reviewers is be vigilant about pages that assume the death date is the report's date when the source didn't explicitly specify an exact death date. —Bagumba (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ITN should have limitations concerning non extended confirmed users

Today we had a nomination for a routine local re-election as ITN. From User:Pnc4k - in their 17th ever edit, and first-ever contribution at ITN. And while User:Mike gigs correctly notes that I shouldn't bite (and AGF - though I'd think any user that fails CIR has good faith) - perhaps it's time to restrict ITN participation to those with at least a little bit of experience. Or at the very most, limit them from creating or closing proposals. Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be restricting people from contributing in good faith unless they are persistently disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Nfitz. I don’t think you’re wrong. ITN has been under particular scrutiny lately. I know some people see ITN as a “good ole boys” club (and this may add to that), but others see it as a breeding ground for arguments - mostly caused by those who don’t understand or read the rules behind ITN. So I don’t think this is the worst idea. It would certainly lead to a reduction in the destructiveness and contention that surrounds ITN, even if just a bit. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 01:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to impose those (though maybe our guidance should urge editors to wait and lurk to see how ITN is run) such that they will have a better idea what stories we typically post. But preventing them from nominating at any point is not really good (against WP's overall purpose). Obviously in cases of posting of contentious stories with clear problems like POV (like what that IP did yesterday), those should be quickly closed and removed, but the local election one was made in good faith, one that we know won't go anywhere, so quickly closing it with a gentle note was the right step. Masem (t) 01:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Though there have been some lulus lately. I missed the Tesla Gigafactory one ... lol, actually I think that's quite amusing. An over-reaction by some ... just close the clear joke, which seems to be poking fun at both sides! Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was the danger of adding the 'nominate' link on the Main Page, which I opposed at the time. Inevitably we now get more inappropriate nominations from new users who are unfamiliar with the process. That's not their fault, we can simply point them to the criteria while opposing the nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 14:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify to readers that ITN highlights quality articles in the news?

While it is clear to regular editors that ITN has a quality bar to post, it might not immediately be obvious to readers – leading to the occasional question of "why wasn't X posted" even though the article wasn't up to par. As readers are, after all, our intended audience, I'm wondering if it could be helpful to indicate somewhere in the ITN section that it is about "quality articles in the news" rather than indiscriminately listing anything in the news. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral observation: None of the Main Page sections have an explanation for readers on its selection criteria. —Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was also having similar thoughts about DYK, which many people unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes see as a collection of selected fun facts rather than as showcasing new/expanded articles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITNQUALITY? Seems like the glossary in the ITNC header does not have it linked. Shall we have it there? i.e. All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. (bolded are the changed (linked) text). – robertsky (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a good improvement, although that's not really a place where readers might see it. I'm wondering if we could add a subtitle under the "In the news" header explaining its purpose (something like "Quality articles about recent events"). Maybe the same could be done for DYK, although at that point it might become a Main Page-wide change.

That change would likely need a wider RfC either way, but we're only just at the workshopping part. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we are strictly talking readers and not readers-that-become-editors, there is almost no need to explain the criteria of the main page sections to them, and all sections have links to the nomination criteria for that section where quality aspects are discussed for those readers that do become editors and want to contribute. I don't recall much of any reader coming here asked "why wasn't news X posted?" but a few exceptional times to require any more direct communication of this to the reader otherwise. Masem (t) 13:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall much of any reader coming here asked "why wasn't news X posted?" The issue is that this is fairly difficult to measure, as, by definition, readers who are not editors won't be as likely to come here and ask, although I also recall seeing this happen a few times. I wonder if there might be other off-wiki places where readers might be asking these questions, or if there's a better way to ask for feedback from non-editor readers. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's near impossible, as outside of the header banners like for wmf's donation drive there's no way to get solely readers to look at WP space pages. — Masem (t) 14:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it will help newcomers to understand that there is a defined quality criteria to meet before an item can be posted up. – robertsky (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image protection

I'm somewhat concerned about image protection. The file page holding the current ITN image looks different to files that I've previously protected. In particular:

there is no lock icon
the edit button is visible
I've checked with my wife (who has zero advanced permissions on Commons), and when she commences the process of uploading a new image as a replacement to what's currently there, this option is available to her.

Is there reason for concern? Are there any Commons admins around who can confirm what the status is of that file? Just noting that I'm aware of this phabricator ticket. Schwede 66 23:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've tried to upload a different crop on top of the file that's already there, and only when I hit the "upload" button do I get a message that the file is protected. Very confusing! Schwede 66 23:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lock icons are, and have always been, solely decorative. They're not added by the interface, they're added by templates manually added to pages; and the bot that adds images to c:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en doesn't put the template on those images. (Good for it! The templates are a horrific kludge, and if we want the icons we should put them into the interface so it doesn't ever lie to people.) One of the proper ways to get the protection status is the Page Information link, which for the image I assume you're talking about is here, and it correctly tells you that it's under cascading protection. —Cryptic 23:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic diversity

The current four ITN blurbs are about tariffs (economics), a Moon landing (outer space), film awards and international politics about climate change. This diversity is refreshing, even if partially due to lack of elections, sports championships or major mass casualty incidents in the past week (there was an archaeology news before the German elections). Keep up the good work! 116.15.216.78 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this, happy to see more topic diversity! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One way to look at it is Japan, US, US, US, UN. Suddenly no longer diverse. We blurbed Gloria Romero and was pulled when people asked who she was... Then ITN did not blurb Barbie Hsu partially because of that. Oh well LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Er. I nominated Barbie Hsu for RD though. – robertsky (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN/R space exploration content

I am curious what the general thought is here regarding the nature of ITN/R's 3rd space exploration entry, "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". I, personally, am thinking that it might no longer be valid to have at ITN/R. We haven't posted many orbital launches recently, and List of spaceflight launches in July–December 2024 is a good indicator of just how many recent launches there have been. List of missions to the Moon also shows us that there have been and seem likely to be more and more missions to the moon in the near future. The way I see it, I think we should be evaluating orbital or lunar launches on their own merits, instead of having a blanket allowance for all of them to be posted to ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. As commercial launches become more common with programs such as Commercial Lunar Payload Services, it's probably best to remove this from ITN/R, or to restrict it to interplanetary missions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think, personally, that interplanetary missions would be so slam-dunk at this point that ITN/R placement isn't even needed. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move the threshold to be beyond lunar orbit, rather than focus on the commercial facet. Getting to the moon is now "easy", other destinations like asteroids or other planets are still much harder.
If we ever get manned missions to the moon, the first in several decades may be appropriate but that can be suggested undrr a normal ITNc. — Masem (t) 00:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, manned missions might actually be better ITN/R material in the end because they fit under the "happened before" label, but at the very least the next one would be be very notable. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're yet at the point that lunar landings are routine or easy enough to remove them from ITNR, but we are getting close. So far there has been just one successful private lander, and since 2020 the only space agency ones are Chang'e-5, Chang'e-6, Vikram and SLIM. A rate of roughly one mission per year is not too many to post. Crewed missions will certainly be notable enough to post, and are unlikely to become routine for at least another decade. Lunar orbit is much easier and more frequent, which is a problem for the current wording. Perhaps we should put 'successful' in the wording for now, and require lunar missions to be landings (not just orbits or flybys). If/when successful lunar landing become common, then we can push the limit out to 'beyond the Moon'. Something like:

Successful arrival of spacecraft at their destinations, if that is beyond lunar orbit or a lunar lander

Modest Genius ^talk 13:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current nomination indicates that at least in terms of landers "successful" is not black-and-white and possibly not the best term to use - does a partially successful mission count as a success or failure? Separately, if we do change to something like you suggest I think it would be clearer if we split it into two criteria:

Landings of spacecraft on astronomical bodies other than earth
Arrival of spacecraft at destinations beyond lunar orbit.

Crash landings on the moon seem to be (currently) as notable as soft landings, and a landing on an asteroid or comet that passed between the earth and moon would certainly be notable. I'm not sure we need to specify "successful" for the second - I can't think how a spacecraft could arrive at its destination unsuccessfully? Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By landing but not being operational, or landing awkwardly or falling over? - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus seems to be that partially successful landings are as notable as fully successful ones, but my comment was not about landings but about reaching destinations beyond lunar orbit. Thryduulf (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The big space news currently is the "rapid unscheduled disassembly" of another SpaceX Starship. ITN/R tends to act as a filter and so distorts our coverage and makes it too samey. Whether something is notable should be based on coverage per WP:N. Let's just follow the evidence rather than dogmatic theory. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Something not being on ITNR does not preclude it being posted via a normal nomination, and while the SpaceX failure might be notable not all similar events are so they don't belong on ITN/R. I do note though that Starship failing to hold itself together has not been nominated, which is an absolute barrier to posting. If you think it should be on ITN then you need to nominate it. Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose tightening ITN/R criteria for space exploration. We had 8 blurbs about outer space in 2023 and 12 in 2024, which seems reasonable (all other natural science topics have very little representation at ITN, except perhaps archaeology discoveries). Tighter criteria for space launches will only reduce the topic diversity, making ITN all about elections, sports and deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.126.10.15 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal and clarify we are not tightening the criteria for ITNC. I've been making this point for years, but space exploration is ill-suited for ITN/R because exploration is, by definition, not "reoccurring." Some space missions are reoccurring, but those are the boring ones we would never post. ITN/C has never (to my recollection) failed to post a good exploration event. We don't need ITN/R constantly muddying the conversation. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "r" in ITNR stands for "recurring", not "reoccurring", there are slight differences in meaning but importantly, by recurring we include events that are likely to happen again based on past awareness, not necessarily just those that occur on a routine basis like elections, sports championships, and awards. Masem (t) 15:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]