Wikipedia talk:In the news

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117

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

ITNR archives

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

Suggest: Impeachment of Yoon Suk Yeol

Yeah, I know, don't suggest here per header - but the instructions on how to suggest stuff are arcane, there is no nice tool like for DYKs, so I don't feel like jumping through the hoops and doing this old-school for 5m. Anyway, this is big news in Korea, and on April 4 the local Supreme Court will rule on this. I just got an @ from my emabassy warning of expected mass protests and demonstrations. If the president is impeached, it would be newsworthy - keep an eye on that, and I hope someone will nominate this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't Kim been impeached already? If yes, what is this impending ruling about, then? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, willfully disobeying rules won't get this posted, at least according to your wishes lol. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has been impeached, and we posted about that in December, but it seems a decision on whether to actually remove him from office is due in two days. My suggestion would be that should that removal take place, we wait until his successor is known, presumably after an election, and then post the whole thing then. He's de facto out of office already anyway, so his formal removal wouldn't have any tangible effects on the ground. — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following precedent from Impeachment of Park Geun-hye, the new president should take office within 60 days, and that Park's actual removal from office was posted at ITN, then the ensuing presidential election was also posted. We have posted several items from this crisis already, so would people here be fine with posting 2 South Korean blurbs in 2 months or just one? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masaki Kashiwara

The Abel prize is ITN/R and only held up due to concerns that the article is too technical. After the article is improved and a few supports saying the article is now good enough, the discussion is deleted.

This is a setback for ITN topic diversity. 121.6.104.76 (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not updated before it was deemed stale (as it was nominated in the midst of several other stories). That It took that long to get to quality is why UT wasn't posted and has been archived. Masem (t) 22:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was article quality. If the Masaki Kashiwara article had been brought up to WP:ITNQUALITY, it would have been posted. There was almost a week between the announcement of the award and the ITN nomination being closed as stale - plenty of time to improve the article. In future, I recommend you put your effort into bring the article quality up rather than complaining about the nomination process. Modest Genius ^talk 11:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 FSU shooting?

Should we add the 2025 Florida State University Shooting to ITN? It is a pretty big event in the news, after all. Malka d-Ashur (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shootings in the US are consider too routine for coverage at ITN. Masem (t) 20:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Masem. Unfortunately, a shooting with < 10 casualties (injured + dead) is too commonplace in the US and is unlikely to get posted at ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just have an ongoing item "Shootings in the US" with a "(latest)" link and then toggle it as we go along? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, because ITN is not a news ticker. Masem (t) 22:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. —Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITNC Archives are broken

Midway through each archive page, the nomination templates stop showing up and instead are replaced by text showing the name of the template. (For example, March 2025 on March 11th) This obviously makes the archive viewing experience worse. Is there a way to fix this/make sure that future archived pages do not have this issue? Jbvann05 18:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a template transfusion limit I.e. maximum number of templates allowed on a page. This archive looks like it's exceeded that. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INCLUDELIMIT and Help:Template limits. Natg 19 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One way that this can be avoided is to subst the {{ITN Candidate}} template in the archives. However, I am not sure if we can subst TemplateStyles that's currently embedded in the template. – robertsky (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deaths and comprehensiveness

I'm not framing this as a criticism of any editors or administrators but I would like to know exactly how comprehensive and complete biographies should be to be posted under recent deaths. I will point to two recent examples from the same field (ha ha!), association football.

Leo Beenhakker died on 10 April. The article was posted on 16 April. I don't know the exact time it was posted, but this was the final edit of 16 April: [1]

Here are some observations on that article:

Citation 1 for place and date of birth is sourced to a clickbait website [2]. This was never questioned in the ITN process. It appears what is more important is having a source, rather than it having any credibility.
Beenhakker's entire managerial career from 1965 to 2000 is summed up in two sentences. This era included winning the Dutch championship with Ajax and Feyenoord, and a hat-trick of Spanish titles for Real Madrid - none of which was mentioned in the prose. It is incomprehensible that this would be allowed for a current manager.
This two-sentence 35-year section omits any mention of EIGHT clubs, per my count.
A personal life and death section was posted with one line of personal life, unsourced. Basic Wikipedia guideline that all personal life must be sourced, is it not?
Honours section unsourced apart from medals from governments. Aren't pages about actors sunk all the time because filmographies and awards sections aren't sourced?

Now compare to Aaron Boupendza, who died on 16 April. The nomination fell off the page when this was the state of the article [3]. Let's observe this article:

Frequent citations and details on clubs and seasons
Statistics and honours overwhelmingly sourced

But...

No details on his last club, his six games for Zheijiang in China. Can't post.

I don't understand what the ITN criteria for comprehensiveness are. A decent article can be sunk because it's missing the most recent part of a player's career, but two sentences are enough for a whistle-stop tour of 35 years of elite football management? Missing mention of one club is bad, missing eight is good? Since I came back home and back on the PC, I was able to add 10,000 bytes (text only) to the Beenhakker article, and that's even without adding the Real Madrid, Ajax and Feyenoord bits yet. I was just trying to get the bare minimum of coverage of teams that weren't mentioned on the page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quality criteria are at WP:ITNQUALITY. Reviews can vary depending on what the volunteers at a given nomination observe. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2025 § RD: Aaron Boupendza looks to have gotten stuck over coverage of his Rapid București stint and after. The link you provided also shows an orange tag for Zhejiang FC, which would have needed to be resolved (or deemed not an issue). —Bagumba (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]