Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 6

Put Milosevic's photo in "In the news" it is the biggest news in decades. --Serbianna ₪ 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• The image is not under a free license. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-11 22:05

Considering 9/11 was less than half a decade ago, no. --Golbez 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the biggest news in "decades". The fall of communism, the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain was the biggest news in decades. The Iraq war and European enlargement were recent big events. At most, the death of the war criminal Milosevic is one of the most important events to date in the year 2006. Johnny English 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Got one in there now. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OH MY GOD, SOMEONE PUT RADE MARKOVIC'S PHOTO and stated that its MILOSEVIC'S PHOTO, CHANGE QUICK, ITS ON THE FRONT PAGE!!! --Serbianna' ₪ 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't Lennart Meri's death important enough to be included here? Is it because he's neither American nor a war criminal? Note that throughout the entire history of Estonia, there have only been three Presidents of Estonia, so one of them dying is certainly a major event. JIP | Talk 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. These vague reversions are out of line. I think the guideline being cited is that death-related news items should only be included if 1) the funeral ceremony merits its own article, or 2) the death itself had a huge impact on the world (such as a current President being assassinated). While there is currently no article for the funeral ceremony of the Estonian President, I do believe it does merit its own article. For an actual example, Ronald Reagan's death was on the main page June 2004, but he didn't get a death/funeral article until April 2005. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 19:16
• I thought that the guidelines were that that the death had to have an immediate and substantial impact on political affairs to be included. If the funeral turns about to be so shattering, why don't we wait until it takes place? Otherwise, you are opening a huge can of worms. Just look through the archives to see how many people have lost their attempt to install a famous death, political or otherwise, on this template. Tfine80 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That is one of the criteria, the other being that the person's funeral ceremony merits its own article. In reality, however, deaths are generally limited to present or past world leaders, or other people who are or have been in powerful political positions. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 21:25
    • Political leaders are also denied frequently enough to make this inclusion very controversial. For all of Meri's fame in Estonia, the Milosevic and Pope John Paul deaths had greater impacts on immediate political reality around the world. That is why two admins reverted the initial change for Meri. Tfine80 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • And what impact did Reagan's death have on immediate political reality? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 22:41
        • One crime does not justify another. --Golbez 22:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The "crime" started when the rollback button was used, and has become amplified as only one side of the debate has bothered to reply on the talk page. How is a former president of the US worthy of ITN, but not a former president of Estonia (which has had only had 3 presidents). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 22:47
            • You disagree with Reagan being there, but yet you're using it as a reason. I'm saying, if you think Reagan didn't belong, then neither does Meri. So if you truly believe neither belongs, then stop asking for Meri to be put there. --Golbez 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Umm, I don't disagree with Reagan being there. Read Devil's advocate... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:36

• On a related note, other than mentioning his date of death in the brackets after his name, the artice hasn't been updated with info on his death. Harro5 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I might point out guidelines two and four: The current event needs to be important enough to warrant updating the corresponding article., which besides a death date, has not occured yet, and The article must be updated to reflect the new information and have a recent date linked, which (any update besides adding a DOD) has not occured yet. I'm against including this; I don't see the political or international impact of the death. Are we to include the death of all world leaders? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not a specific requirement that the article detail the new incident, just that it be updated with reference to the incident. The article does link to news stories about his death, however. And it would be easy enough to update his article with specific details. It would seem less controversial to do that than to rollback and admin who adds the entry. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 22:58
    • I agree with Flcelloguy. If it's listed under recent deaths in the Current events page, and relevant pages are updated (eg. list of Presidents, date when he died, 2006, etc) then that is ample recognition. Harro5 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • But I say that his death/funeral ceremony merits its own article. Therefore I have fullfilled the other possible requirement of criterion #5. There are two possibilities. So far, you have only replied to the first (that his death isn't that widely impacting). How is this any different from Reagan's death? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 23:02
        • But just because something could be written doesn't mean it should be linked to from the main page; there's plenty of articles waiting to be written - should they all be included in DYK? Regarding the Reagan inclusion - I'm not arguing that that death should have been placed in there; as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant because we're not bound by precedent. Even the ArbCom isn't bound by precedent; in cases where the policy isn't clear, we should consider each case individially. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I've updated his article with recent content, including statements from 3 world leaders. Is this notable enough now, or does he still have to be American? I'm not sure if citizenship can be granted posthumously. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 23:14
          • As for his death meriting its own article, this is simply the statement used in the guideline. If you don't like the wording, get it changed; or, write a decent article on his death/funeral, and then submit it to AFD. Those opposing his inclusion seem intent to follow the guidelines exactly, except, of course, when they go against them. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 23:17
            • This is getting ridiculous; the template has been reverted no less than 9 times in a matter of hours. Can we please discuss this first before any more reverting? Regarding the update: I still fail to see what political implications or international consequences this has. The update gives quotes from the next leader and quotes from the Finnish and Latvian leaders; however, with any death, there are bound to be leaders who comment. Just because a president of another nation releases a statement or says something does not mean that the death has significant political or international implications. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I was accused of wheel warring when I removed it. I'm staying off the template for now. If we are voting, I'd vote for operating in accordance with the current ITN guidelines till the guidelines are revised, i.e. I'd vote for the removal of the obituary of Meri. Maybe it's time to review the ITN guidelines. -- PFHLai 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say remove it as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• I say remove. Mike H. That's hot 06:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for replying on the talk page. I would keep it for the same reason that Ronald Reagan's death stayed on the page for 7 days: because the death was of a former world leader, someone who merits a separate article for their death/funeral ceremony (as required in Criterion 5). It seems like common sense to me. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 04:20
  • Criterion 5 was added to the ITN guidelines in August 2005 after a long discussion. (Please see Template talk:In the news/archive4 #Obituaries.) Reagan died in June 2004, i.e. before we had that Criterion 5. Is there a more "chronologically relevant" example ? -- PFHLai 07:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Slobodan Milošević ? Oooops! I put that on ITN .... -- PFHLai 07:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The death of Rosa Parks was added, and wasn't finally removed until 3 days later, when Talrias replaced it with newer items; or how about the death of TV anchor Peter Jennings. Let's look at the attempted death inclusions for non-current-office-holders in the last 5000 edits:

      Allowed:

      1. American civil liberties activist
      2. American in persistent vegetative state
      3. American Jazz musician
      4. American TV anchor
      5. American TV comedian
      6. Austrian-Jewish Nazi hunter
      7. British prime minister (former)
      8. New Zealand prime minister (former)

      Denied:

      1. American rap artist
      2. Australian billionaire and media mogul - (The Tom used rollback to remove this)
      3. British cabinet minister (former)
      4. Chinese writer
      5. German president (former)
    • So, where does "Estonian President" fit in this list? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 08:12

Regarding Allowed #2 (Terri Schiavo), #3(Artie Shaw), #4 (Peter Jennings), #5 (Johnny Carson), #7 (Edward Heath) and #8(David Lange), their death was posted on ITN before we got Criterion 5. Allowed #6 (Simon Wiesenthal) was indeed removed, but someone violated the guidelines and put it back. (Then I somehow fell asleep and edited it instead of removing it.....)

That leaves just one allowed. Please see another similar discussion like this one at Template talk:In the news/archive5 #Rosa Parks. Now, I repeat, Maybe it's time to review the ITN guidelines. I'm following the existing guidelnes till they are revised. -- PFHLai 09:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Slobodan Milošević ? That may be an exception, and no one has complained (yet). -- PFHLai 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Are you sure Peter Jenning's death occurred before the guideline was added? Since guidelines are supposed to be observations of how things have gone in the past, it's safe to say that Peter Jennings probably would have been added in after the guideline was created, if indeed the guide did come after his addition. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:07

• Jennings died on August 7, 2005. The blurb on his death left ITN on August 9. Criterion 5 was added to the ITN guidelines on August 19, ten days later. -- PFHLai 20:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • In order:
      • Rosa Parks: Heavily notable in American society, though not at the time of her death.
      • Terri Schiavo: Was in the news, and therefore her death was a news event.
      • Artie Shaw: Shouldn't have been there.
      • Peter Jennings: I'm iffy on this one, since most of the news on his death was precisely because he was in the news, and news always reports best on itself. For the purposes of this argument, I'll say shouldn't have been there.
      • Johnny Carson: Highly notable to American audiences, but I'm not sure if he belonged on ITN.
      • Simon Wiesenthal: Almost definitely, his was one of the more newsworthy lives the world has had in the last fifty years. However, I can see how it would be a no, since it had no immediate bearing on the world.
      • Edward Heath: The problem here is, the Brits will complain if we let American presidents on but not British PMs. So I abstain from an opinion.
      • David Lange: See above, but with Kiwis instead of Brits.
      • ODB: Hell no.
      • Kerry Packer: Hell no.
      • Mo Mawlam: Not really, but a better case than the previous two because of the Good Friday Accord. But still avery weak case.
      • Ba Jin: Unfamiliar with him, but based on his intro he seems an important figure. I don't really know.
      • Johannes Rau: See above, but insert Germans for Kiwis. (Makes for a very poor tasting fruit salad) Though Germans have a much, much smaller presence here, seeing as how they aren't Anglophone.
    • All this just brings me back to a proposal I offered some time ago - add a small "Recent deaths" section to ITN, with the two most recent highly notable (i.e. what appears on Current Events) deaths. That would solve most of these problems. --Golbez 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I would agree to such a section, provided that it was fixed in number, and possibly placed inside <small></small>. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:07

• Remove, as per guidelines. Sad to see one person violating the revert rules without support but with several people in opposition. violet/riga (t) 16:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Since it seems like most people here favor removing it, I'll wait some time, and barring any serious objections, remove it. We can then proceed to discussing the guidelines, if needed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a democracy? Whatever happened to actually discussing the rationale behind something instead of vaguely citing a guideline which may or may not apply to the situation, given past use of the template. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:09
      • I've already replied to this below. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The people I reverted had not even replied on the talk page once, and in one instance they used rollback. So, no, I was not "violating revert rules." Besides, numbers alone do not make an argument correct, and few of the replies I've managed to receive have bothered to actually discuss the argument, instead preferring to just say "get rid of it" and add 1 to their number. I can't help that the other people who wanted this article in ITN didn't bother to reply here. This is why Wikipedia is not a democracy. If the best you can come up with is "sad to see someone violating the rules, ignoring the numbers", then you should probably not bother to reply, as you are only deteriorating discussion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:00
    • Violet/riga, Brian0918, let's all calm down - there's no point in escalating this conflict; let's discuss this respectfully. Brian0918 - have you considered the fact that most of us have given replies to your objections already? True, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but the majority of people here agree that it should be removed. Wikipedia has always worked by consensus; while I'm certainly not claiming that there's a true consensus here, but the vast majority of people here favor removing it, and we've all given replies to your arguments already, which I won't bother to repeat again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Did my post sound hostile? I was just being to-the-point. Violetriga's post lacked any constructive content... As for the people who have replied here, all of the reverts came before the discussion here; and only 1 of those who reverted has since replied here. Of course Wikipedia works by consensus. That means that you discuss the matter, weigh the rationale, and eventually agree or at least agree to disagree. That doesn't mean that a dozen people can post a 5-second reply saying "get rid of it" and then never return to the page. Wikipedia is not a democracy, regardless of whether you want it to be in this situation. This is especially true on a page that can only be edited by admins, and that is so visible to the public... Of those who originally added the entry, or reverted to re-add it, only I have weighed in for/against the inclusion. Should we ignore them in order to paint it as, in your words, a "vast majority". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:14
        • Checking the history, only two people - you and JIP - have re-added the item back in, while more people have removed it and even more people have commented here favoring removing it. Am I missing something? Both you and JIP have already commented here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I had thought Admrboltz was involved in re-adding it, but he only added a picture. How about replying to any of the other content in my previous post? You have repeatedly mentioned your majority, but completely ignore the fact that majority != right on Wikipedia. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:21
            • True, majority does not mean right, but neither does minority. We've tried our best to reply to your comments; I'm pretty sure that we've answered to all your comments already. Is there any point that you think we didn't respond to? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Of course minority != right. I never said it did, nor did I try to push the talk page in that direction. You have not answered why Rosa Parks and Peter Jennings are alright, but a former president is not alright. You have not said why you don't think the president of Estonia merits a separate article for his death/funeral ceremony, as did Ronald Reagan, as is a requirement for criterion #5. You have not really replied to any of my rationale, except to say that most of the deaths that were previously added occurred before the guideline was added, but you ignore the fact that guidelines are descriptions of how things have gone in the past. I would say, that if you actually agree that Wikipedia is not a democracy, then you should ignore the replies that are simply votes and do not add any constructive content (Violetriga, Mike H). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:29
                • I never said that you said minority equals right; I'm simply pointing out a counterargument to the fact that majority does not always equal right. Regarding your points: PFHLai and Golbez have already responded in great detail to your questions above, and so have I, even though my argument differs from their opinions. I've never argued that anyone included in the past should have been included; I'm looking at the current case, and arguing that his death has no great political or international implications. We're not bound by precedent, and as the others have pointed out, the guidelines in question weren't written yet at that time; thus, how could the inclusion of the deaths violate a nonexistant guideline? Regarding the comments of others - everyone here has tried their best to express their opinions, even if it's just agreeing with past sentiments. I hope this clarifies things. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • "Minority != right" is not a counterargument to "majority != right", because the original argument was actually addressing a claim you were trying to make, repeatedly, by saying I was going against a "vast majority" without adding any constructive content. If I had even tried to claim that "I am therefore right because I am in the minority", then you could have said minority != right... You still have yet to say why his death/funeral doesn't merit its own article, as Ronald Reagan's did, and is the other possible requirement for Criterion 5, which says people's deaths must either be important or merit their own articles.... You still have not said why Rosa Parks was allowed, but the president of Estonia is not. Her death definitely occurred after the guideline was added, and Peter Jennings death likely occurred while the guideline was being devised.... As for your fellow supporters, I highly doubt that "I say remove" is trying one's best to reply... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:55
                    • Well, since an article on his death/funeral has not been written yet, let's pose the question: why would it merit a separate article? Is there enough information and notability to warrant another article, given that it hasn't been written yet? Regarding the inclusion of Rosa Parks - have I not made my point clear earlier? Apologies if I haven't, but I haven't argued for the inclusion and/or exclusion of any past deaths; we're not bound by precedent, and we're looking at this case, not the death of Rosa Parks. By the way, please, assume good faith on the part of everyone here; people may simply agree with the above arguments. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
                      • Reagan didn't get a funeral article until almost a year after he died. I'm not sure Meri has even had a funeral yet. In any case, being the former president of a nation, I would say that his death/funeral ceremony do merit their own article, although the necessary content to make it a decent article may not yet exist. Regardless of whether the article exists yet, it does merit being created, and so fulfills the other option for Criterion 5... You follow guidelines that are created based on past actions, but claim not to follow precedent? Why exactly have you decided not to follow precedent, and why should I not follow precedent?... As for your claim that I am not assuming good faith, I am simply identifying those who have not provided constructive content to the discussion. I'm sure their votes were made in good faith, but voting is not consensus. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 18:16
                        • It's clear that this argument is getting us nowhere, as I'm pretty sure I've already addressed those points earlier. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, regardless of your opinion, most people here (in fact, everyone except for you and perhaps JIP) agree that the item should not be included. We've had a long discussion, and we've all addressed every one of your points already. I apologize if we haven't replied to your satisfaction, but we've all done our best, and most of us here agree that the item should not be included. There's simply no reason to continue including it at this point. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
                          • So you are resorting back to democracy, and claiming that this discussion is going nowhere? I thought the discussion was finally becoming productive. I told you why I believed Meri's death/funeral merited their own article, but you have not replied to that. I asked you why we don't follow precedent, but you have not answered that. Can you reply to either of these, at least? I don't understand what your rush is to remove the entry; if you say that we don't follow precedent, then it shouldn't matter how long it takes to discuss its inclusion/removal, provided that we actually come to a reasoned conclusion, rather than a majority=right conclusion. You are, after all, a mediator. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 18:37
                            • (ec) Apologies if I didn't make this clear earlier, but I thought I did: not only are we not bound by precedent, but we can't just look at several individual cases in the past. It is possible that we made a mistake back then on including them; I haven't said that I supported - or have not supported - the inclusion of the deaths of those figures in the past. In any case, as the others have pointed out above, each individual case has its own unique circumstances; for the circumstances of this particular death, I still fail to see the international and political consequences of this death. Regarding his death meriting an article: I don't feel that his death merits an article, and judging from the comments of the other participants in this discussion, they don't either. Just because someone is notable does not mean that his/her death merits a separate article. Unless the death draws significant poltical and/or international notice and the funeral is exceptional, it does not merit mentioning; in addition, as I've pointed out before, this is a hypothetical article that hasn't been written yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
                              • Finally! A decent reply :) My mentioning previous instances (Peter Jennings and Rosa Parks) wasn't as a means to justify this article being included, but an attempt to re-examine what past rationale were and whether they actually were notable deaths. I don't believe Rosa Parks or Peter Jennings received significant political/international notice to warrant their inclusion in the template. I would suggest that we modify the criterion to remove the ambiguous content and state explicitly that only people who were in an office of power when they died, or who were key figures in their field and died unexpectedly or tragically, be included in the template. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 18:56
                                • OK, so what you're arguing is that the guidelines should be modified? How about we compromise - since the death doesn't fit the guidelines now, we remove it for now, and then we can discuss the issue with the guidelines. For what it's worth, I agree with you that the guidelines could be modified. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
                                  • That is fine with me. I'm just trying to prevent the systematic bias that has clearly been a part of the history of this template, as evidenced by my list above. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 19:02
                                    • OK, great! I'll go ahead and remove it now. Also, I apolgoize if at any time in this discussion if I was blunt or if I didn't make myself clear; this was a rather long debate and it certainly wasn't my intention to be ambigious or tactless. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(De-indenting) I disagree with the result but am glad there is one. I am hoping that when the guidelines are revised, they're made sensible enough to allow mentions of deaths of famous, prominent, respected former Heads of State even though they've never been involved in controversial war crime trials. JIP | Talk 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest you add your stated criterion to #5 at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page, or propose it on the talk page. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 20:02

Just because I haven't argued my point here doesn't make my view less valid. I'm actually constrained by time and am not able to argue about petty things like this. Fact of the matter is that there were more people thinking it didn't warrant inclusion than thinking it did. You edit warred on a Main Page template. violet/riga (t) 10:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• You also edit warred on a main page template; the only difference being that I was involved in discussion while you kept edit warring and continued to remain out of the discussion. Again, if all you are able to provide is your own personal vote, you should not bother to involve yourself in the discussion; this is not RFA or FPC. Not having enough time for involved discussion is not a valid excuse, as there are plenty of other people able to contribute constructively to the situation. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 13:49
  • I remove it once (not an edit war, just a revert) and then once more when the discussion on here showed a preference for removing it. You readded it three times, coming close to a 3RR violation and certainly violating WP:1RR. Stop saying that I should discuss this as I simply don't have time to argue such crap. violet/riga (t) 13:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure why you believe it is "crap", or that it deserves less discussion. I'm not sure why you would involve yourself in a discussion at all if you think it is "crap", and the most you are able to contribute is to say that it's "crap". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 14:23
      • Brian0918, violet/riga, wanna spend more energy on drafting the new ITN criteria, instead ? --PFHLai 16:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I have already done that, and am waiting for input on that talk page... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 16:22
          • Here's a link for easy navigation: Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page#Amendment to death criterion #5. --PFHLai 16:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though I am not Estonian, it feels kind of sad to see how much controversy Lennart Meri's death on ITN has caused in less than one day. Regardless of his eligibility to ITN, Meri was a highly respected political figure, and his death was a sad thing to happen (as is pretty much anyone's death). I'm glad this will remain a Wikipedia internal matter. If it would leak out into the public media it would taint Meri's memory. JIP | Talk 11:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• If which part leaked? The fact that people don't want him on ITN, or the fact that they're alright with Rosa Parks and Peter Jennings, but not him? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:00
  • I was pretty much referring to this entire edit war. When viewed from the world outside Wikipedia, we seem to be arguing like a bunch of schoolchildren. This is not a good way to remember a well-respected politician. JIP | Talk 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What about the discussion makes you think that it looks like a bunch of schoolchildren? Is it the length? The content? Please be more specific. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 18:19
      • Mainly the length, about 8 pages in 24 hours so far. This should have been settled with much fewer arguments. JIP | Talk 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • What is the rush? I would rather that the rationale be thoroughly discussed and all sides agree, or at least agree to disagree, before removing content from a template that is so public and is only editable by admins. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 19:04

Why don't we do like the German Wikipedia and just leave a different space for 2-3 notable deaths on the front page? Would solve this problem -- except for the new debates about notability. Tfine80 20:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this really news? I'd suggest restoring the note on Venezuala's flag, which is actually quite interesting, as it is convention only to include the most notable of sports. Case in point, people even hesitated about mentioning the 2006 Commonwealth Games. Harro5 08:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My general feeling is, if the sporting event is notable to enough have its own article, then it has a chance. Not an automatic one, but still. Also, I would not have hesitated on the Commonwealth games. --Golbez 08:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Iditarod is a big event in the Arctics, even though it's not notable in countries with no snow. The wikieditors involved always do a good job on those pages. I've put it at the bottom on ITN. It will be the first one to get off when a new item comes in. The Commonwealth Games should go on ITN, but I'm not doing daily updates this time. -- PFHLai 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Six young men are in intensive care after taking immuno-modulatory drug TGN1412." How is this noteworthy? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• ITN is for decent articles that detail current events. This event has had decent news coverage, and according to the original submitter, our article is now the best source of information on the topic. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 23:25

• I just want to add that the Wikipedia article is still the best article on the subject (at least that I have seen). There has been so much misinformation in other reporting on the mechanism of action, and the Wikipedia article collects a lot of facts from many different sources. Also, the story is still development at a face pace.

Could someone apply the proper copyright tags to Image:10003427yl6sp.jpg (probably {{GFDL-self}} ?) and get it {{mprotected}}, please ? It's on the Main Page right NOW. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 23:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a free pic of Larry: Image:20060319.1541.aqua1.x.geoir.17PLARRY.90kts-954mb-177S-1482E.jpg. --199.71.174.100 00:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's protected. Shimgray | talk | 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A big thank you to Shimgray & The Tom. I hate to see vandalism on Main Page...... -- 199.71.174.100 01:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The link should be to the latter. Larry's page was titled contrary to naming conventions for articles on Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclones as established at Cyclone Tracy and Cyclone Zoe. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 20 March 2006 @ 00:05 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 2006 Commonwealth Games entry be in the present tense to match with the rest of the box? Melchoir 00:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. -Splash^talk 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Although... isn't "Australia sweeps" more natural than "Australia sweep"? Melchoir 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh interesting. I think I was using Australia as a kind of collective noun (or something) i.e. referring to the team rather than the country. -Splash^talk 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one getting sick of Australia absolutely owning every event? Case in point, the fact that we can do this and still be absolutely factual. I think we need to branch off into a separate Australian Wikipedia to recognise our dominance. Harro5 01:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is a little surprising to me that Portal:Australia/News doesn't even mention the Games. Well, whatever. Melchoir 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Except the opening ceremony, that is. (ahem) Okay, that's all, folks! Melchoir 01:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the Australian sweep of the 20km walk, is it possible to get the names of the silver and bronze medal winners linked? --DMG413 03:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is re-elected in the Belarusian Presidential elections as President of Belarus amid widespread condemnation.

We should reword it thus imho: Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is re-elected as president in the Belarusian Presidential elections amidst widespread condemnation of the election's validity.

Could someone with edit priviledges sort this out. 137.222.10.67 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Golbez 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently the item in question reads "Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns following the Muhammad cartoons controversy". Now, this isn't quite right because it suggests the resignation came about as a direct result of the cartoon controversy (suggesting the crisis was mishandled by the minister or something). According to several sources I've seen (this being fairly representative) she resigned because of continuing questions over the Swedish response to the Asian tsunami and after admitting she knew about her ministry's role in closing the website of a political party that contained the controversial cartoons. I suggest it be reworded as “Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns over allegations that she played a role in closing down the website of the Sweden Democrats which had contained controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad”. Mikker ^... 18:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear: there are two Mohammad cartoon controversies. (1) The worldwide protests sparked by the publication of cartoons widely seen as blasphemous in a Danish newspaper (see Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy). (2) The controversy over the alleged censorship of the Sweden Democrats website. Freivalds resigned because of (2) not (1). Mikker ^... 18:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikker, the controversy in Sweden is certainly a separate event, but the part of it connected to the cartoons is so closely connected to the global events, both in content and in principles of freedom of press, that if one decides to call it two events, would it not be better to call (2) : Leila Freivalds resignation? After all, most journalists in Swedish radio and television clearly consider this just to be the last drop after what they consider the much bigger scandal of her alleged mishandling of the Tsunami help. Hearing their analysis, the cartoons themselves dwindle into insignificance. The fascinating story of how her lie was made obvious by the boring "Riksdag & Department" looking at public internal papers is much more a part of the story than the cartoons themselves. DanielDemaret 08:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC) As for there being two cartoon controversies: One might argue that there are many connected cartoon controversies.DanielDemaret 08:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, and yes, your news-link is very representative. Good choice there, Mikker.DanielDemaret 08:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC) I just read Splash take on it, and of course, the cartoons referred to where different, which of course they are. I assume this is what you meant when referring to the events as separate, and what I wrote above became superfluous.DanielDemaret 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

About the wording allegations I may have missed something, Mikker. Is it not clear what her role was by reading "Riksdag & Deparment"? She knew that a civil servant of UD intended to contact thos responsible for the web, and she at least tacitly approved of it. The events seem clear, not alleged. The legal implications are unclear, as they always are, of course. Can it really be against the constitution just to have a chat explaining the harm the web page could cause? I think it is against the constitution, but a court would have to decide.DanielDemaret 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Alleged is usually used when someone denies what happened, and Leila is did not actually hear Leila deny the allegations at her resignation talk.DanielDemaret 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is always a good thing to be cautious about such matters, especially on a high traffic site such as Wikipedia. I think "alleged" should stay even if you think (like me) that she probably did intervene improperly. We can let readers make up their own minds. Besides, WP:NPOV would also suggest "allegedly". Mikker ^... 20:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Right-o. The question, I suppose, is not whether or not she indirectly intervened in any way, but whether or not it was improperly done. Alleged, it is then. DanielDemaret 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Japan-Cuba game was the finals of the World Baseball Classic, an event that started a while ago. Also, I think it's somewhat strange to say "in the U.S. state of California" -- not only does almost everybody know where California is, but considering the size of the state, it's better to refer to the city (San Diego). -- Mwalcoff 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've updated this accordingly to simply say "in San Diego, California". --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you also add the words "finals of the" before "World Baseball Classic?" Thanks -- Mwalcoff 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The link to Belarusian presidential election, 2006 was added to the "In the news" template late. By now the election is old news. The election occurred on March 19. Today is the 22nd. It should be removed or at least be moved down to the bottom. 172 | Talk 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The election may be old news, but there are ongoing protests. And since democrats everywhere are hoping for a Belarusian version of Ukraine's "Orange Revolution," I think the item should stay. (though, as you suggest, it shouldn't be in first spot). Mikker ^... 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps instead a new Belarus-news to make it afresh? It is certainly a historical even in the long term, even if each and every part of the event seems small now. I'll just pick one more recent event from the list... like... this one? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4843690.stm DanielDemaret 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Or this http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Leader_of_Belarusian_Opposition_arrested ?

Or perhaps this ? http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Violence%2C_arrests_end_Minsk%2C_Belarus_protests ?

The protesters have told reporters that their lives may depend on the reporters of the west staying a bit longer on them. DanielDemaret 23:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That is all, thanks :) porges 08:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It says "a capital crime under Islamic law". To be more accurate it should acknowledge that it is a fiqh ruling... since fiqh is human effort to follow the Sharia... the Sharia is more of a vague concept. So, we should say "a capital crime under Afghani government fiqh ruling" or something. except... is it clear if it's codified law? It is an interpretation of sharia... and a very notable interpretation... but, saying it is sharia is... well, ambiguous. gren グレン 03:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's false to say he was "acquitted", i.e. "found innocent". The case was dismissed for technical reasons, no verdict was ever issued. Babajobu 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't describe anything remotely resembling an acquittal. Could an admin please fix the ITN template. Phr 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording now. Please let me know if the wording is clear now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's certainly better now. I think it doesn't have to be "clear" as much as "not wrong". People wanting clarity can read the article. Phr 23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it should (hopefully) be both. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I see the article itself is in a pretty confused state right now. I'm sure people are busily working on it and will sort it out quickly. Phr 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nominations for in the news follow specified criteria and are approved for placement by others if they have merrit. Who said World Intellectual Property Day is a holiday? After comments below:

Please stop nominating trivial fake holidays for ITN. --Golbez 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, Gregorydavid 09:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your semantic argument has no purpose, none of your recent nominations have fit the ITN criteria. --Golbez 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The item about the protests in France refers to protestors. According to dict.org the correct spelling is protester. Phr 19:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Solar eclipse on 29 March 2006 is currently on AfD. Should it stay on ITN ? Do we have a policy against featuring such articles on the MainPage ? --PFHLai 19:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If it had been on AfD before it was put there, I wouldn't have put it there. However, it seems like it will survive handily. However, it could still be confusing for it to have the large template there, but I don't think it's that too large a problem. --Golbez 21:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency" and not the other way round? As far as I know, Russia has more to do with this space launch than NASA. So why are Americans always placed first? Voyevoda 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Because we like to see people accuse us of a pro-US bias. --Golbez 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More to point, that was the format I was given. However, the commander is Russian and the craft is Russian. If someone else wants to change it, I won't stop them, but I don't see a pressing requirement to. Anyway, NASA comes first in the alphabet, which could be considered the most neutral way of handling it. --Golbez 23:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt, that in cases where USA is the most involved side, the alphabetical order is followed. Voyevoda 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We do have that convenient "American" bit we can whip out, don't we. You are not assuming good faith. --Golbez 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The following headline..

A newspaper critical of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra agreed to stop publishing for five days amid protests about the way it referred to the King of Thailand.

...should be...

A newspaper critical of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has agreed to stop publishing for five days amid protests about the way it referred to the King of Thailand.

No biggie, but still.  :) Nuge | ^talk 15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On it. --Golbez 16:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The mistake came back ! Should be "agrees".

It happens so often that the newsitem concering the picture is not immediately adjacent to the pic itself. Any reason why this is? It has confused me often, and a lot of anons as well judging from the reactions. Could this be remedied?

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A (pictured) is usually placed to clarify what the image is for, and a description should also show up when the mouse is hovered over the image. The news items are placed in reverse chronological order; I'm not sure if moving up a news item because it has an appropriate picture would be suitable. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that (pictured) indicates the news item which is pictured. However, in practice it is confusing nontheless. Comments such as this one are regular reoccurences on the discussion page. Apparently, the notice that something is (pictured) is not prominent enough.

I understand that, in general, we should use news items in reverse chronological order (thats what makes it news and not olds :-) ). But why hold stringently to a rule if it makes the Main Page less clear to inexperienced users?

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Argh! Somebody correct the picture! That is not Moussaoui! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 12:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here to correct it!? Argh! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 12:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'pictured' note was moved to the previous entry. Ergo, it isn't Moussaoui, but the text no longer says it is either. --CBDunkerson 12:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was just changed [1]. It actually did say Moussaoui was pictured. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 12:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, I see from the history that the changes to picture and text took place ~15 minutes apart. Hence the various comments on the mismatch. By the time I looked it was resolved by UtherSRG. --CBDunkerson 12:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

An administrator needs to change this - NZSL is not yet an official language of New Zealand, at least not yet. The front page is misleading - yes, Parliament did pass the act, but it needs to recieve Royal Assent from the executive before actually becomining an offial language. I also posted something about it on the Administrators' Noticeboard. You can see more discussion NZSL's talk page, or on my talk page. Thanks, zappa 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just tweaked the template, changing "making..." into "to make ...". Hope it's better now. -- PFHLai 06:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The act did receive Royal Assent on Monday, so it became law on Tuesday. -- Avenue 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Too late now. The item is no longer on ITN. -- PFHLai 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Serbia is faced with the highest level of floods waters in last 25 years as water levels of four major rivers are increasing. source 1, source2. --Pockey 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pls see my response on the ITN Candidates' page. -- PFHLai 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The 2006 Jama Masjid Blasts looks like a good candidate for Main Page. It is already listed on the Main Page of Wikinews. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pls see my response on the ITN Candidates' page. -- PFHLai 10:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was there no mention of the Tel Aviv suicided bombing that killed 9 civilians nor mention of Hamas' refusal to condemn the act? That certainly should have made the front page. —Aiden 22:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Was there a substantial update to an article about it? ITN is not a news list, it's a list of newsworthy updates to the pedia. --Golbez 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

She wasn't fired for disclosing "black sites". She was fired for allegedly leaking classified information. It has not been dsiclosed what that information is. Wikipedia is reporting the speculation about what she was fired for, not the facts. --Tbeatty 16:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The leak pertained to stories on the CIA’s rumored secret prisons in Eastern Europe, sources told NBC. [2] Raul654 16:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Reportedly Mary O. McCarthy" ? If it's not certain, we shouldn't put rumours on MainPage. Perhaps the page to be updated and the link to be bolded should be black site ? -- PFHLai 17:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a rumor. The CIA won't say who it is, but a number of other sources have. Hence, "reportedly". Raul654 17:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So it's unofficial ? Hmmm... still not convinced this is ITN material.

BTW, please see ITN guideline #1 and Template talk:In the news #How to suggest a story for the main page #2, and add the blurb to Current events with 1 or 2 external newslinks. (I'm getting tired of enforcing guidelines....) -- PFHLai 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you remove the loaded word of "still" (refuses to concede) from the news brief of the Italian election. BlueGoose 12:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"House of Representatives" should probably like to Nepal House of Representatives and not Parliament of Nepal, or the link to it changed. 68.39.174.238 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed an attempt to highlight the news item that goes with the picture. [3] I remember seeing some discussion about it, and all supportive of the general idea. But the particular implementation didn't look right to me. I suggest making a draft template and work on getting it perfected - Template:In the news/highlight. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The above is what [4] I came up with so far, including highlighting behind the bullet point and the image. It's still not quite right to me, but something to work with. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• The discussion about this issue is currently on WP:VPT#In the news - pictures. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen the discussion there, which seems to agree on the idea (me too), but not on a particular implementation. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • Ugh. To me it looks clunky, garish, and uninspired. I must say that I'm not a fan of this proposed change. What's wrong with the current method of using (pictured)? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

originally from Talk:Main Page. and then copied to Village pump (proposals), where it received no additional feedback. Then copied to Village pump (technical) where it got a little more feedback but no consensus emerged. Copying here for archival.

Further to people's complaints above regarding how it is confusing at first as to which article belongs to the picture; There is a little (pictured) caption in the text so it's not a huge issue but how about somethig like this?.. (Rough mockup, it might look stupid in your browser)

...to highlight the appropriate article entry? --Monotonehell 06:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And maybe a thin blue border for the picture to link them better intuitively. Great idea. --Quiddity 06:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh I wanted to do that but couldn't work out the wiki-table layout >.> EDIT:messed with it a bit--Monotonehell 07:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me – it won't make much of a difference to the page, but if people find the current arrangement confusing, it ought to be changed – Gurch 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd still prefer just putting the pictured news on top. Seems like the easiest solution to me..

Still, I like your suggestion. Two questions though. Can the border on the pic be a bit larger? It took me a while to actually notice it. second, mort importantly, doesnt this makeup get messy once the news item moves more towards the bottom? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just a QaD mockup in wiki:table markup, I imagine that the CSS for the front page could include a special element for the appropriate box somehow. So yes the border can be any thickness (I couldn't work it out in wiki markup though). It would get separated from the picture if it slid down yes. But if it were the only highlighted entry the viewer's eyes would be drawn to it more quickly than the obscured (pictured) tag. --Monotonehell 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd still support some changes to show the link between text and picture more prominently. Is this one of those things that everybody is going to agree on, but gets archived without ever being implemented? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there have been no negative reactions. How do we get this implemented? --Quiddity 18:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better than including the pictured news bit at the top, as that maintains a sense of chronology which would otherwise be disrupted by changing stuff around. I'd say to go to MediaWiki:Monobook.css (or MediaWiki:Common.css) and ask someone that it be done. You might want someone with coding skills to make it prettier, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have cooked up a draft implementation of this (still imperfect) at Template_talk:In_the_news#Highlighting_item_with_picture. Let's work on perfecting this, with the way it's coded. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple days ago, an attempt [5] at implementing this on ITN was made (in GF). But, it appeared to me that the coding needed more work. Per WP:DISCUSS, I'd like to see the specific implementation and it's coding refined before going live on the main page. Are we going for something like the example above, with the color extending 100% across to the border? or something else. Here's a draft that I began working on (see right). Please help improve it. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. The highlighted box appears clunky and garish; what's wrong with the current method of saying (pictured)? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that every few comments on the mainpage discussion are people being confused about which picture it is. Actually I'm starting to think the latest suggestion is the best; always have the topmost article corespond with the picture, if a picure isn't available just put the flag of the nation the even occured in or perhaps just put a wikinews logo. --Monotonehell 09:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The div method works nicely. (i fixed to the usual colours here, and changed the highlight colour to a shade between that of the background and border.) I really like this, except for the uneven border around the image, which only appears at the sides, not at the top/bottom. Can that be fixed? -Quiddity 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the mock-up looks crude. It's the best I could figure out without using tables, like the example at the top. The top example looks cleaner, but the markup may be more confusing for those updating ITN. My preference is to have a picture for the top story. The articles also need to be in chronological order. So maybe a flag would do, as suggested by Monotonehell. Though, a flag might not always be suitable... --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In the part about the Great American Boycott, "continues" should be "continue". Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently we've got this on ITN:

After significant losses in English local elections, the British Labour Party government will see a major cabinet reshuffle.

Seems to me that there are 2 major problems with the wording, it should be in the past tense as the significant part of it has now happened and I think it would be hard to argue that the government has done the reshuffling as not even Gordon Brown was involved. I propose this as the new wording:

After significant losses in English local elections, British Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair conducts a major cabinet reshuffle.

Ian3055 12:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been discusisng this over on Wikinews, but it seems that they do not control the Wikinews box on Wikipedia. So, I am posting this here. This is my original query and proposal:

Why do the Wikinews stories not have direct links to those stories? Clicking the Wikinews link takes you to the list of stories and I never seem to be able to find the story I am looking for. I think the bullet should link directly to the Wikinews story. I think that the logical idea that someone gets from that section is that you can read the news you are interested by clicking somewhere in that blurb, but there is nowhere to get to that story. When you go to the main page of Wikinews, you almost never can find the article you are interested. I propose that the bullet should be the link to the story.

Can this be done? Otherwise I think it is useless to have such a section on the main page. But maybe I am just being picky.

Cyferx 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, this isn't really supposed to be a Wikinews box. Although most people probably (quite fairly) assume that this feature exists as a handy newsfeed, it technically isn't. Rather, it's a subtly-different creature—a means of highlighting articles that concern subject matter that is, so to speak, in the news—demonstrating Wikipedia's non-paper ability to be up-to-the minute. Perhaps this could/should be made more explicit, because it's an ongoing issue in terms of a lot of items being submitted to it that don't contain substantially-updated articles. The Tom 04:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Then Wikinews should be removed from the box and it should be called something other than "in the news" which immediately brings to mind that you can read that as a news story. I think it is perfectly harmless, and quite useful to have it link directly to Wikinews stories. The fact that it doesn't seems to be actually dysfunctional in this hyperlinked world. It simply isn't intuitive that you cannot read the news story that generated that mention. Cyferx 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat curious if the title Topics in the news might make the feature's significance more clear. The Tom 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just yet another mine collapse. It is notable, but how many mine collapses were there this year? Plenty, I would think. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I feel that mine collapses are relatively rare compared to other disasters in the world right now. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two periods on at the end of the second entry. Not life threatening, but a bit annoying.--72.146.173.79 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The current section indicates that the Sudanese government and the SLA rebels have signed a peace accord "to end the Darfur conflict." This language might mislead some readers into thinking that the peace accord in fact ends the conflict. That is not true; whether there is peace or continued conflict depends on future actions of the parties to the conflict. I suggest changing the language to something less definitive, such as "with respect to the Darfur conflict." (My suggestion is a bit awkward; but I feel that it's on the right track. Perhaps someone will come up with better wording.) -Scottwiki 23:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well caught--it had irked me, too. That said, after trying to wrap my head around potential wording for a bit, I just thought it might be better to throw a fresher news story up in its place anyway. Italy ought to get a president in four something hours, anyway. The Tom 01:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The High Court should not be called "Britain's High Court". It's the High Court of Justice of only England and Wales. Bastin8 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal cases are italicized. Please italicize Apple Corps. v. Apple Computer. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there's a high probability this will be announced in a few hours, might as well be prepared: Raul654 04:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it for now; it could be very confusing for someone who happens upon this page for accident. Also, it's been more than a few hours. --Golbez 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant what I said about a few hours - most people are saying that if Rove is to be indicted, it will be today, this very afternoon. Raul654 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Hm. Well, if it happens, then it's 3 reversions back. :) --Golbez 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooo, Good. Dmn € Դմն 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this - [6] - Rove was served with the indictment this morning, has already informed his superiors, and Fitzgerald will be announce sometime during the week. Raul654 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This note was on the main page, disconnected from anything about the bears:

Instead of Banks Island, Canada. It should be: North West territories, Canada. This is for the top story on the ITN. Thanks. FellowWikipedian 20:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Please see the discussion here.

Unknown source. -Harmil 17:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Banks Island is in the NWT, though. The Tom 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I copied the discussion below. FellowWikipedian 19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the page about this event, reflecting the fact that the bear was not in Iqaluit, Nunavut, rather the new report that is footnoted in the Wikipedia article is datelined there. The actual bear was found and shot on Banks Island, in a completely different territory (Northwest Territories) quite far away from Nunavut. Can we change this, please?--Canuckguy 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Current coverage [7] seems to indicate increased activity, but "not necessarily a sign that the volcano [is] erupting". I'm wondering if that's the best term to use on the top item.

There were no revelations that Hirsi Ali lied, there was just a repeat of old news that she had lied. This error was probably copied from an error on BBC. Can an admin please fix it? It should say something like 'following a report repeating old news that Hirsi Ali had lied...' or so (let a native speaker phrase it). The current phrasing is incorrect. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I will make this change. If someone feels strongly I acted incorrectly, revert me. I will not take offense. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For future reference you may report errors on the main page to WP:ERRORS. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're still looking for an image of Hirsi Ali, Image:Hirsi Ali.jpg from commons is public domain. jaco♫plane 22:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Last chromosome in human genome sequenced - CNN

This sounds worthy of a main page news piece. What do you think? --Shultz IV 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates next time. -- 199.71.174.100 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this on ITN ? It's not even the final yet ! Are we promoting tomorrow's show with some front page advertising on Wikipedia ? -- 199.71.174.100 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly advertising, and while I might've personally been inclined to wait until the final, there's plenty of precedent and justification--the viewership numbers alone put in quasi-SuperBowl territory (well, not quite that high) and it's no different that reporting the outcome of biathalon races at the Winter Olympics or the item immediately next to it about UEFA. The Tom 02:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So, who "won the semi-final" ? Armenia ? Come on. No difference ? If there is a page about the winner and the winning song, much like a page about the winning team and one about the football game, I would understand. Looks like whatever is on ITN is setting a precedence, instead. Maybe we should start including the results of every round of 2006 NBA Playoffs now ? We are almost down to the Final Four. -- 199.71.174.100 05:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's on the lower end of the notability chart, but this certainly isn't as cut-and-dried as your hystrionics seem to presume. In any case, I've removed this grossly offensive content for space reasons at the moment. I'm fairly certain we ran the finals winner last year and imagine it'll happen again. The Tom 05:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing against the Eurovision Song Contest. I'd even support its inclusion when we have a winner. Wikipedia has surprisingly good contents about this annual event that deserve an appearance on ITN. It's not "grossly offensive". I just think it's way too early to show that on ITN right now. Armenia making the cut is not even important enough a news item to get on Current events, so there's little justification for it to be on the Main Page, methinks. I look forward to seeing a link to the winning artist's wikipage on Main Page tomorrow. -- 199.71.174.100 05:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Would File:Lordi monster rock band.jpg be a better pic for ITN than File:Lordi-screen.jpg currently there ? The band, consisting of 5 members, is not a solo act. -- 199.71.174.100 06:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sad but true, first one is (was) a copyvio by an AP photographer. I killed it. --Avatar-en 09:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooops.... and I thought everything at Wikimedia Commons would be good..... Sorry for suggesting the change. -- 199.71.174.100 11:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even so sure about the copyright state of this one (it's a screenshot from a vidiwall). --80.171.39.124 16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Newly-sworn-in Italian prime minister Romano Prodi labels the Iraq War a "grave mistake" and pledges to withdraw his country's troops.

"In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event". Has the Romano Prodi page been updated with these comments of his ? Want to read about it, but i can't find it. Cache problem again. I hope not. -- 199.71.174.100 06:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this, Pharos. -- 199.71.174.100 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone please consider changing the Indian flag image to any of the protest images that have been added to the article Indian anti-reservation protests, 2006 (the article is in "In the news" on the main page right now). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was already done. --Golbez 14:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How about instead of East Timor's flag, we use Image:TAG_E.jpg, which shows the Austrailian battalion deployed in the region?

It's a promotional image. I'm not sure whether we allow those on the main page. I've wikilinked the image in the message above for everyone's convenience.-gadfium 05:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The news is essentially, incorrect. Those are only preliminary estimated results. The final results will be known by the end of this week. These news say as if the referendum passed... (which is yet to be determined tomorrow morning) --HolyRomanEmperor 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By what measure are we calling this "the largest train station in Europe"?

• Train movements, Berlin approx 1600 [8], Clapham Junction more than 2000
• Travellers and visitors, Berlin 300,000 daily [9] 109.5m per annum, London Liverpool Street 141.1m per year [10]
• Platforms, havent found a figure for Berlin, but London Waterloo has 36 in use

And that is just a cursory look around the UK figures (which I'm familiar with) other locations in Europe may be able to beat these figures. Also is there any particular reason this story didn't appear at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates? Ian3055 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not familiar with train stations, I would say that your stats refer to the "Most active", "Busiest", "Most number of platforms", not the "largest", which I'm guessing is purely based on the area. jaco♫plane 23:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Times of London seems to be under the impression it's the "largest in Europe" The Tom 00:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please consider updating ITN. Colombian presidential election, 2006 and 2006 Giro d'Italia have been waiting on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates for quite some time. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 05:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How about instead of the Indonesia flag we use the public domain Image:Klaten collapsed houses.jpg? It illustrates the situation much better than a flag. -- NGerda 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Things become too small to tell what is in the photo when displayed at the usual 100px:   -- 199.71.174.100 04:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The in the news section now contains 8 entries. The suggested number is 3-5, and while that suggestion is regularly ignored, 8 is too many. The section needs to be cleared of some old news. At the very least, the Enron convictions ought to be removed, as that is old news. NoIdeaNick 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly there was overstretch there for a bit, but since DYK flipped with On this day, there's tended to be a bit more length for the section to play with... and I'd consider that old 3-5 suggestion to be worth of revision, or potentially asking somebody who maintains OTD to consider maybe trying for a bit more length in future.

As for the Enron thing, I think that speaks to the separate issue that we had a particularly slow news week in terms of rollover. Plenty going on in the world, but not much by way of articles discussing them--I stuck up some like the Berlin train station which were admittedly a little weak but at least had an article and kept things fresh. The Java earthquake was pretty much parked at the top for upwards of two days, which is pretty unusual. FWIW, I'm rather fond of the rats up there now. Kudos to whoever posted that.

The Tom 00:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The link to “Yugoslavia” should be redirected to “Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. – Zntrip 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)