Wikipedia talk:In the news

March 2025 Lunar eclipse

It's a pity that we can't discuss this eclipse again. There are quite a few interesting aspects of it emerging in the news today. Like, that it's the first since 1967 to be imaged as a solar eclipse from the lunar surface (by Blue Ghost).[1][2][3] I opposed it yesterday because I didn't see anything unusual about this eclipse (which may not have been an accurate assessment), and because of the timing -- it's not been properly in the news before it happened. Compare this 2014 APOD (and no, as far as I can tell, Chang'e 3 didn't image the 2014 eclipse). Renerpho (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This would of course have to be added to the article before that fact could be featured in ITN. Renerpho (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Tagging the closer and the nominator: Tone, Interstellarity. Renerpho (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

We can and are discussing the eclipse again but the discussion is not very edifying. The point you make about the eclipse being viewed from the moon too is a good one but the nay-sayers are not providing or engaging with such evidence and are making ad hominem arguments instead. This ought to have been a straightforward posting of an uncontroversial scientific event which has attracted much interest but, instead, ITN is gridlocked once again. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Eclipses and other celestial events like meteor showers are oddities as they are known events for many that are for the most part just interesting but provide no new scientific understanding or other long-term impact on the world, and they are only really useful if we post the story ahead of time so that readers know to go look if they are in the right areas to see it (which affects what news stories cover it, making news bias also a factor). Masem (t) 12:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Most ITN postings provide no new understanding or long-term impact – ball games, elections in small countries, bus plunges, fires and other accidents, weather, etc. Imposing extraordinary requirements on some topics but not others is not neutral or objective. Our postings should be based on evidence, not opinion. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

We're actually educational. The whole project is about providing new understanding. Secretlondon (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

We currently have five "ready" blurbs at ITN/C

What should be done about them? I'm worried that some such as 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites are becoming stale, and they can't all be posted at once. Should the older "ready" blurbs be posted and then rotated with the new ones after 12 or 24 hours? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The massacre one is still not ready due to the fact that we have yet to see any independent confirmation of the numbers, and that likely looks like it will fall off, though if independent sourcing does come through later and there's still violent activity, that might be a way to consider again.

But let's say we have these 5 that are truly all ready. My suggestion would be to add 2 to the box per day, so that at worst these all get a minimum of 48hr within it. Masem (t) 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Genuine question - what needs to be dome to get this blurb up before it rolls off? Can we just eschew the number in the blurb to solve the issue? DarkSide830 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

We'll never get independent conformation of the numbers as it's a war zone. Secretlondon (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a good problem to have. I'd also note that no article is guaranteed to have a long exposure on the main page, and in this scenario + for the sake of readers we should prioritize timeliness. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It's only a 'good problem to have' if we fix it. Otherwise we're just letting usable homepage content slip away. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

There's also the option to trim an item from WP:OTD for balance. —Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, what has to happen for someone to post (for example) the Greenland election? GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Admins willing to post ITN: , would it be possible to get Greenland up? Looks ready to go, and it's been over 24 hours since a new blurb was added. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Restored from the archive. I think I see a weak consensus for the first change above, but as I'm the one who proposed it I don't want to make the change myself (at least not without others saying go ahead). Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Support either of the two wordings. The first seems more natural, although the second could be seen as more explicit in its meaning. Since the first is what seems to be the consensus, go ahead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think we've generally adhered to this principle already. Just a question - what is "significant" biographical coverage? Would this be general biographic article minimums, ie we demand biographical prose that is not just about the death itself, with multiple independent sources? I do think that should generally work, but I'm not sure if we want to look some more at how we define "significant" before making such an amendment. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that we need to be explicit, but I think we should be ideally looking for at least 1-2 paragraphs of sourced prose about their life prior to the events surrounding their death. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP and KISS. This is over-complication for an issue which is quite insignificant. The current wording seems quite adequate and flexible. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  This is over-complication ...: Both options are one-word additions. —Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  The word would generate bickering about what is or isn't biographical. This seems silly because if the content is about the subject person then it's biographical. The current language of "significant coverage" and "case by case" is better because it's more common sense and flexible. And a key point is that the issue rarely arises and is no big deal so there's no need for more complexity.

  What's more, we have multiple policies which tell editors not to legislate like this (e.g. WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW) but the kudzu keeps creeping.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  I do think that it counts as a big deal given how it's about our literal main page. Having a "case by case" decision is less than ideal as it can easily introduce systemic bias (especially when used to make exceptions in contentious, politically charged topics), so making the letter of the policy align more closely with its spirit and with generally accepted practice is ideal.

  WP:NOTLAW, which you cite, explicitly makes the point that policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. It doesn't say that we shouldn't make policies, only that they should follow consensus and practice rather than prescribe it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  The case in question was Ariel and Kfir Bibas, right? Thrydulf opposed that but it was posted. Rather than accepting this with good grace, they now seek to promulgate a rule of their own devising to overturn this established consensus and practice. This is contrary to NOTLAW. See also WP:FORUMSHOP. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, the blurb was pulled soon after it was posted, specifically because the posting went against consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Chaotic Enby is correct, there wasn't a consensus to post the blurb when was posted (it is debatable whether there was consensus against or no consensus either way) and opposition only increased. Most of the opposition was based on the lack of biographical content, which represents the long-standing consensus dating back to at least circa 2016 (when the present RD policy was established). Additionally, if my proposal did not accord with the consensus it would have received opposition for that reason - instead it has received significant support and the only opposition has been of the "we don't need a policy" type rather than "this doesn't match consensus". Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• The nomination discussion, which is the only link in the OP's post, doesn't give any of that history. So, I just had to figure out what happened in this case. The full timeline was:

1. Nomination discussion and posting: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2025#(Posted)_RD:_Ariel_and_Kfir_Bibas
2. An erroneous revert thinking that there was no nomination. [4], [5]
3. A revert based on Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_116#Shiri,_Ariel,_and_Kfir_Bibas

The primary point of the latter discussion was that the deaths had taken place months earlier and so were stale. Another big factor was that it was a contentious topic. So there were multiple considerations in that case and, per the adage, "Hard cases make bad law". Sticking to the "case by case" principle is best when it's so complex.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Smaller arbcom/active sanctions warning templates?

If we are going to including warning templates on per nominations as there is on the Gaza stories, we really need a shorter version as the current is far too large.
In addition is we should only add them if it is the discussion is leaning that way with non regulars appearing to add comments. I don't see anything yet on the Gaza topics to suggest a problem ( the concern being whether it was a surprise attack or not which is far outside what IP conflicts usually are) — Masem (t) 15:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• According to the template documentation, there's "brief" parameter which makes it shorter but I just tried it on the second Gaza nomination and can't see any difference. There's also a "small" option but I'm not sure how well that would play with a busy page like ITN/C.

As for the nominations, the first one seem quite partisan to me and the editors rushing to support seem to include some suspicious accounts. Socking is supposed to be rife in IP issues and there seem to be multiple organised lobby groups on both sides such as CAMERA, Tech for Palestine, &c. ITN seems like a natural magnet for such activity. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I did find {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice}} which is far shorter for this purpose. — Masem (t) 00:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Executed criminals

We had one in recent deaths recently, and now have two listed in candidates. We do say that any living creature with an article is acceptable - I think the problem is that they are semi-celebrities and have lots of media coverage which means that each one has an article. I don't think we should have every US executed criminal on the front page though. What do others think? Secretlondon (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If we have an article that has reasonable biographical coverage of them (see #Small tweak/clarification to ITNRD above) they qualify for RD. The purpose of RD is to not make the selection of deaths in the news to be politized or anything but as inclusive as possible, barring the quality requirement. Masem (t) 12:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There's very little biographical information in Aaron Gunches, his history starts at his crime. Eddie James and Jessie Hoffman Jr. do have some history, at least. Secretlondon (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If you think the article isn't a biography then you should request to move the article to a different title with a different scope, but there is sufficient biographical coverage in all three articles at present to qualify for RD regardless of the article title. I strongly oppose being more selective than we currently are about who qualifies for RD, it will only lead to the sorts of arguments we had before the system changed in 2016. Anything related to criminals/executed people/or similar would lead to NPOV issues very quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the underlying issue is that every US elected criminal has an article as they are kind of celebrities. There's not a lot we can do about that. Secretlondon (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That likely is more a BLP issue, specifically BLPCRIME. We discourage articles on convicted criminals of significant crimes, the crime itself should be the focus, but there are cases where the convicted is notable beyond the crime itself. Masem (t) 13:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't really understand how these articles meet BLP at all. A lot of these articles seem to fail WP:BLP1E. They have a lot of coverage, but it really is just coverage of the individual's incarceration. Eddie James was covered on America's Most Wanted; does this count as passing 1E? Hoffman is a little more clear based on appeals, but I do just generally doubt how notable (and really, of reader interest) these articles are. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There are a whole bunch of "biography" articles on political officeholders which are really articles about the office(s) they h(e/o)ld, or the office(s) is used as an excuse to create an article which is ostensibly biographical but still a massive disservice to readers, and little effort is put into correcting this. The only solution offered by the average Wikipedian is to scale back notability guidelines, never mind that our current article count is laughable in the overall context of "the sum total of human knowledge". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Some readers will be interested in elected or executed criminals; others may prefer to avoid them. It would therefore be best to give the readers some context for each article such as a short description and then they can choose for themselves. Just listing the name is quite inadequate and so RD's format needs expansion. To see how this can easily be done better, see the German language Wikipedia which currently lists:

Obituary

• Witold Fokin (92), ukrainischer Politiker († 20. März)
• Eddie Jordan (76), irischer Automobilrennfahrer und Motorsportmanager († 20. März)
• Nadia Cassini (76), italienische Schauspielerin und Sängerin († 18. März)
• Esa Pethman (86), finnischer Jazzmusiker († 18. März)
• Brigitte Behrens (73), deutsche Umweltaktivistin († 17. März)

How hard is that? Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

In technical terms, trivial. In terms of getting consensus for it, very. This is because the massive increase in screen estate taken up will need to be balanced by other changes to the main page which are very difficult to get consensus for. Additionally, I recall similar proposals to add context to RD entries have been rejected on multiple occasions. Consensus could have changed of course, but I don't think it likely. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

For comparison, the German Wikipedia only has four items in its DYK, which are pushed down by the RD section (which is a fully separate section from ITN) and are not visible at all when first opening the page (at least on my screen). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

So what? It may be that their DYK is not as busy as the English one or perhaps their standards are higher. The thing is that main page formats are not rigid and unchangeable. We should be experimenting with improvements as a continual improvement process. The rest of the internet isn't standing still and it's my impression that Wikipedia is losing ground ... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's the thing with de.wiki's RD box - there's no quality check to those - they are automatically added. Spot checked a few there and it shows undersourced articles. That may be fine for de.wiki but not en.wiki's front page where our goal is to showcase featured content. Masem (t) 15:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with the issue of providing a short description. And the English RDs are not that good. For example, we now have one of these executed criminals at RD: Jessie Hoffman Jr. I just spot-checked the first fact in the article -- the date of birth -- it's not cited. The nomination only had a single response and so the vetting by ITN has been perfunctory. The talk page for the article has zero discussion and there doesn't seem to have been any other peer review or quality checks. This is not "showcasing featured content". Andrew🐉(talk) 22:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It may be that their DYK is not as busy as the English one or perhaps their standards are higher. I'm going with the latter, regardless of whether it's actually the case. In 18+ years here, I've read exactly two things expressed by an editor on a talk page which I agree with 100 percent. One of them was the belief that DYK is a haven for self-promotion and bad writing. Nothing's changed in all those years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Spot checked a few there and it shows undersourced articles. That may be fine for de.wiki but not en.wiki's front page where our goal is to showcase featured content. Um, sure, whatever. There's been a years-long pattern of RD candidates promoted to the main page which were prettied up but plainly deficient, including plainly deficient when it comes to sourcing. You're here all the time, so you've had plenty of opportunity to observe this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You've asked for this multiple times before and it's been explained each time why we don't have room for that while also keeping blurbs for non death items. Masem (t) 19:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Short descriptions are explicitly designed for this purpose: "Every article whose title is not already fully self-explanatory should have a short description. The short description appears with the title in lists such as search results, helping users identify the desired article." By design, they are short and so don't require much space not a massive amount. The German example shows that displaying them is, as Thryduulf says, technically trivial. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'elected or excuted criminals'? GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The OP's usage varied in this way. "Elected" might have been a slip but seems appropriate currently. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Variety is the spice of life

• Look at the current set of blurbs:

1. "...kills at least 10 people"
2. "...kill more than 500 people"
3. "...kills at least 59 people"
4. "...53 people are killed"
5. "At least 42 people are killed..."

Ongoing is then just three wars while RD is obviously yet more deaths. So, ITN is essentially nothing but death, death and more death.

Other main page sections make an explicit effort to ensure a variety of topics. This is sensible because an encyclopedia is supposed to cover the full circle of knowledge – hence the name. ITN seems to err in the opposite direction – a narrow focus on death which seems too morbid and peculiar. It's not a good look.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

LOL the only way non-Caucasian countries will make it to ITN is via disasters and mass murder. Even elections are hard to update. Articles such as these are easy. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have particularly many stories from the Caucasus, do we? GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

People dying in large numbers is, generally speaking, a big deal. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

We have no control of what is in the news. If you want to see a greater diversity of entries posted to ITN, then nominate good quality articles about items you want to see. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the news and nomination process. There's no shortage of non-death news and so, anticipating this response, nominated the World Happiness Report. This is sponsored by the UN and on the front page of The Times today. There's coverage in other respectable news media such as the BBC, CNN and the NYT. There's work to do on the article but the ITN/C crowd has piled on to dismiss the topic out of hand. The opposes seem to be purely personal opinions and there's a groupthink effect too. ITN is not a happy place... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I would !vote no too. It's nothing special. The first female and African president of the IOC is positive, but that might struggle to get posted. Secretlondon (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

We cannot force what news happens. If there's a run of negative news, it is not our responsibility to try to offset that. We should not be trying to force any type of news distribution by twisting our process, nominating things that never would be posted even if there were a dirth of ITNC candidates. Masem (t) 22:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There's an easy fix: support the nomination of the first female and first African president of the IOC, that's currently gaining traction, for instance. Khuft (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

IOC election

some confusion on the main ITNC page, but i think this should be ITNR as the largest sporting in the world that involves the largest/multi-sport viewership. The president does play a role in decisions like participation or trans issues. The previous eleciton was also posted, but not as ITNR. Sportsnut24 (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose adding to ITNR. Given the level of opposition this is getting, it's premature to add this to ITNR which is for things that always have consensus about importance. If this and the next one are both posted then that is the time to consider adding it to the recurring list. To be clear I'm not opposing the posting of the current nomination (I don't have a strong opinion on that). Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The IOC has zero political power, the reason we do post elections of country rules as well as the UN Sec. General. It does not rise to why we have that as ITNR. Masem (t) 14:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose If an individual appointment can meet WP:ITNSIGNIF then that one can be posted, but I see no evidence that IOC appointments always meet ITNSIGNIF, so we shouldn't presume they are always notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I supported the posting of the current nomination, as it did make the news with K Coventry as first female and African IOC head, and I don't think we should restrict ITN to disregard any elections that are not national elections. It should be for users to determine the notability of such other elections on a case-by-case basis. However, I don't think it's the time (yet) to add IOC elections to ITNR - we actually didn't post the last IOC election (which was T Bach's re-election for a shortened 4-year term in 2021, with near unanimity), and it's too early to judge whether Coventry will run again 8 years from now (maybe also unopposed) and whether that will make the news then. Khuft (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Image border

A border was added to the image in this edit on 10 March (I think because a light-colored image was being used). It was not removed afterwards, but should be. — Goszei (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Masem (t) 01:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)