Wikipedia talk:In the news

Nicusor Dan's Photo

Should we change Nicusor Dan's photo to this?: File:Nicușor_Dan_2025.jpg Giving the fact that it's pretty much the the same photo but this version is more zoomed out and better quality. I would really appreciate to get an answer, if so then Thank you so much! 𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓^{𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐} 15:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We tend to use close cropped headshots where one is available for consistency and to maximise the face for the image size. Stephen 23:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In the news footer

Does anyone else think it looks weird that "Nominate an article" in the ITN footer is right-aligned to the start of the image caption rather than to the right of the text? It's the only thing in that column so it doesn't establish an immediately obvious reading order and is sort of distracting when you go to look at the caption. Alternatively, maybe if it had a bigger margin it would not look so smushed up against the caption? – Mullafacation『talk』 14:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It's fine on mobile. – Mullafacation『talk』 14:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I just checked and this only applies to larger screens. (or zoomed out on normal screens) – Mullafacation『talk』 19:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Should death blurbs have a threshold or cutoff based on vital article level?

Interesting comment at ITNC; I think it could save a great deal of back-and-forth subjective debating when there is clearer criteria. What do others think? Left guide (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Heh. There'd be edit wars now on article assessments, or sneaky drive by edits on BLPs on really old people or who are about to die. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This is as close to a perennial question as it gets, mainly for the reason that the Vital Article criteria is meaningless. It's just as subjective as the significance criteria on ITN/C, albeit concealed behind the smokescreen of grades and numbers. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That isn't exactly true. Vital Articles are added and removed from the list by community consensus. I still probably wouldn't support the proposal since the Vital Articles project has a very different goal to ITN, but it isn't a horrible idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

ITNRD - Dealing with unsourced "works" sections

I've been reviewing ITNRD nominations for a couple of years now, and something I have noticed is that where an RD nomination fails on quality grounds, at least half of the time, this is due to the same issue: an unsourced "works" section (depending on the article subject, it might be a bibliography, filmography, discography, etc). This is a systemic issue with many biographical articles.

Often, these lists are not essential to the article. In fact, most of the time they are compendiums of obscure novels or television episode appearances that might somewhere out there have proof of existence (like an ISBN or an episode credit), but do not have any real WP:SIGCOV. If there was a particular work that is essential to their life or to why the subject is notable, that can and should be mentioned in the body of the article, with a corresponding reference.

As such, it is always saddening when the article, which is otherwise well-written and well-referenced, fails to be posted because there are no references for the arguably unnecessary "works" section. I often try to go and do the work of sourcing the list, but it is not always within my capacity (it is long and arduous).

I propose that where an ITNRD nomination is set to fail solely because of an unsourced works section, that we can remove that section altogether for the purposes of allowing the article to be posted at RD. Obviously, this would not be a blanket rule and it would need to be applied logically (you shouldn't remove an entire section just for 1 or 2 unsourced works), but having it as a backstop will allow more recently deceased people to be memorialized at RD. Thoughts? Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 18:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Unless there is a reasonable SIZE issue that splitting off the works would help resolve, removing the section just for posting is sweeping the dust under the rug. Such a section is common for any creative person so not to have it just to hide bad sourcing problems is just wrong forultople reasons. Even if the section is spun off as to prepare the article for RD, and not fixing the sources there is a bad thing. We should not be making up for editors failing to follow the stricter sourcingg guidelines es for BLP. Masem (t) 19:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Removing unsourced content is absolutely within (and in some ways encouraged by) policy per WP:BURDEN, and the ITN crowd shouldn't be making a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary; if an exception is to be made for ITN, that should be proposed at the WT:V policy talk page. If someone wants to remove unsourced content to get the page in better shape to post, more power to them. Left guide (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Removing one or two roles or works that are difficult to source is fine for improving, but not wholesale removal of all such works or all but a few of them just because sourcing is hard to come by. Absence of such a section or call-out to where it us a separate list is failing to be comprehensive and does not met quality requirements. They should not be added in the first place without a source. Masem (t) 21:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

To add, by allowing editors to remove these sections just to meet quality needs for an RD, that's gaming the process because its extremely likely that the section would be readded to the article without full sourcing once the RD falls off the ITN list. That is absolutely not behavior to promote. Masem (t) 21:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN forbids the restoration of unsourced content that has been previously challenged and removed, and at any rate we should generally be trusting that editors performing such removals aren't gaming. Left guide (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

We've seen editors, when an RD has been nominated with a substandard table of works that is relatively small and no SIZE issues are involved, spin out that table to a separate list article to try to hide the lack of sourcing to try to get the main bio article to the main page (particularly in the case of actors). That is unacceptable, and so it is hard to assume editors will act in good faith in taking this type of step instead of actually resolving the lack of sources. Masem (t) 00:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Both AGF and BURDEN contradict the point you are making here. BURDEN says removing unreferenced material is the last resort (after tagging or attempting to source yourself). AGF says you should not assume that an editor has tried to find a source before removing content. I would add that if the removing editor is contributing to the ITN/C discussion, that is an indication of bad faith, because following BURDEN/WP:PRESERVE would prevent the RD from being posted. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The attempt to prohibit wholesale removal of all such works or all but a few of them just because sourcing is hard to come by. on ITN candidates is again a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS contrary to WP:BURDEN. Individual editors cannot make arbitrary cutoffs of when policies do and don't apply. Left guide (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If an RD about a creative person came along without such a listing of works (within or linked from) or a very highly selective one that hits the low hanging fruit, that is simply not comprehensive for an article and is not the quality we expect for ITN. Remember that our goal is to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, not just to be a death ticker (that's what the Recent Deaths page is for), so we are looking at completeness and comprehensiveness too. Masem (t) 23:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE is also a policy. Generally, verifiable information without a citation can be fine, and shouldn't be outright removed, especially just to fasttrack a nom to be posted (WP:GAMING). We shouldn't lose verifiable information just to post on ITN. Tagging is best, unless one has serious doubts about specific info. But that typically wouldn't be wholesale deletion of an entire works section. —Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Masem, Bagumba, But what if there is no indication that the works being added actually have any WP:SIGCOV? Take the example of a noteworthy writer who is mostly known for having published two notable books, which are both discussed in-depth in the article. They also published 25 other books, whose only proof of existence is their ISBN numbers and perhaps a passing mention in an obit or their attribution to the author on an aggregation site like Goodreads.

The way I see it, the book must be notable to be mentioned. If it was notable, it would likely already be in the body of the article. I don't see why the community should have the burden placed on them of going and fetching ISBN numbers for books that aren't independently notable to begin with (and that is, I would estimate, about ~90% of the books with missing ISBN numbers that tank ITNRD noms). Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LISTOFWORKS encourages complete lists:

Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet.

—Bagumba (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That said, to take the example of a person that might have two notable books, and then a number of minor publications that have been identified in a grouping but no individual works (thinking of sci fi authors from mid-20th century that would have come into fame with short stories in sci-fi mags and a couple book compilations), it is fully reasonable that the two works and the grouping of short stories be discussed in the body and no list be actually given. Making a list for list's purposes doesn't make sense when its that short. But that's only a case I see reasonable for a tiny body of works. When you start getting over four or five, then a list absolutely should be made, and where the problem comes in are more likely those with dozens or hundreds of credits to creative works, where a list is essential.

We *do* accept ISBN numbers as a source for books or equivalent, as long as the person was one of the key authors or editors on the top-level credit byline. ISBN databases are recognized standard sources. The more common problem are non A-list actors, with lots of guest and cameo roles in television and film, which require going to the primary work to document, and even then may not be possible with uncredited cameos. That's where most of the RDs that otherwise have good sourcing through the rest of the body fail. Masem (t) 15:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed - I've also encountered the issue with music artists. To get one RD nom through, I had to go and manually hyperlink to dozens of soundcloud and spotify albums, as well as features on other obscure albums and songs. There was no independent coverage of any of the albums or features beyond them literally just existing. But without either the added references or removing the section altogether, the orange tag would remain, and the person would not be posted.

It's an unfortunate side effect of the MOS policy mentioned by Bagumba, but I do understand the rationale. I just wonder if the downsides outweigh the benefits. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

A few unsourced items shouldn't hold up a post. Also a good faith thorough search that fails could warrant deletion of items. What used to be more of a problem was some editors deleting or spinning off these lists after a death in an obvious WP:GAMING to get some ITN "credit". —Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, prose in bios of RDs is also often full of unsourced material, often trivia, which can be frustrating to qualify for ITN while still being true to WP:PRESERVE. The downside is that more obscure, shorter bios are easier to qualify. —Bagumba (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if using soundcloud or spotify is proper, particularly as we get into things that can be self-published. However, I think this question goes beyond the scope of the question here and more at BLP and/or WP:V as a general question of what could be taken as a fair source as a music release database for self-published works.

What is important is that for sourcing a list of works, we should be acceptable of databases that are recognized to be reliable, as the case is for ISBN #s. What exactly that is for other types of creative works or media is left as a separate issue. Masem (t) 20:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Making a list for list's purposes doesn't make sense when its that short. It's not an ITN norm to demand a list be added. It is frowned upon to delete a verifiable one that already existed. It's a disservice to WP readers as a whole, merely to get it on ITN. —Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should be making large changes to articles with the express intent of getting an article to ITN quality. I understand the concern works or similar sections do seem to be very annoying to source. But unless you mean "remove" by taking them out of the quality consideration, I can't fathom just removing them entirely. I feel like those sections are arguably the most important part of the article, especially given how some career sections of articles very much abridges that person's career works. I'd be all for a change to how these sections need to be sourced though, because the quality demands for these sections seem very high. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not just list of works. I also see lists of political offices, military awards, sports records, etc. go unsourced. It's too bad editors that go through the trouble to compile such lists didnt also source them, but the same happens with prose. —Bagumba (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• This issue is nonsensical because most such works are self-documenting and so the work is the source – books and published papers will credit their authors while TV shows and movies have long lists of credits. A source should only be required when there isn't a credit. This often happens with early appearances in minor roles. For example, George Wendt in Bronco Billy which seems debatable – he's on record as not remembering the role but maybe he just forgot. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  The bulk of the problems tend to be roles that are cameos or guest roles which are not well documented or credited in the first place. Masem (t) 22:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Take that up with MOS:LISTOFWORKS' appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship. (Aside: I honestly never understood MOS:FICTIONPLOT's exemption allowing to source the plot solely from the original source, when we wouldn't want an editor to WP:OR the points of a political debate by watching video). —Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  The keyword there is "appropriately". It cites WP:V and the long-standing principle there is that you only need to source contentious claims, material that is likely to be challenged and quotations. When people write articles about artists, musicians and other people who produce works, they usually take the view that the list of their works is not contentious and so don't cite them.

  The trouble at ITN is that the regulars aren't familiar with the subjects and they take the draconian and indiscriminate view that everything should be challenged. My impression is that they are purely focussed on appearances and so want to see a footnote for everything. But they don't actually care what the footnote contains.

  For example, look at the current ITN blurb for Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o. I spot-checked his list of children's works and found that they are just cited to themselves. This is childish repetition which is just clutter and adds no value. Those citations are just there for the sake of appearance – ITN is not happy unless every entry has a footnote superscript. So, to get through ITN, you don't need appropriate scholarship; you just need footnotes for everything. It doesn't matter what they contain; anything will do.

  For more discussion of this, see Are references required for lists of works? I got the last word with a deep dive into a database of International Standard Recording Codes. This has about ten thousand entries for a prolific musician like Toumani Diabaté and so it's easy to get swamped by the data. We're supposed to summarise and so it's sensible to cut down clutter and completism. If the reader wants a bibliographic database then refer them to an external link or {{authority control}}.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  There is a difference between how well the sourcing should be there for an article that is a work in progress, and the quality of what we are looking for for the main page which is supposed to feature some of our best work. I agree that if I were to take any living creative person, a half-sourced lists of works is likely fine and not the type of material to sweep away just because it lacks sourcing. but as soon as we talk about that person's death and now making it an RD, now that list becomes a problem in terms of representing quality work. The solution is that for those that work on the articles of creative persons is to make sure such lists are sourced as they go along, not something after the fact. Masem (t) 12:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don’t have time to fully read this discussion right now but I would urge people to look at the comments I made this week at a failed RD nomination here. The issue from my vantage point is that the policy and guidelines on inline citations for lists of works is far from clear. As it stands the standard of referencing for ITN/RD appears to be higher than for an FA or FL. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Two things related to that: first, many of the examples you give are people that have standalone pages for their list of work, where on those pages, there's sourcing. The selected works on the actual bio page is less a problem there. The other aspect is that when we have a blue link for the work where the person is obviously the sole or one of the main creative persons contributing to the work (eg like the main artist for a record, or a leading star for a film), that's reasonable that the blue link carries the info rather than the source. But when we have a case like Guy Klucevsek where very few of the works have blue links (this includes the section with works by others, where the "other" group is blue linked but the work itself is not) then we absolutely need sourcing for every non-blue linked worked at minimum. This would also not apply to actors with recurring, guest, or camoe roles since it not easily obvious that that actor is associated with that work. Masem (t) 20:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Guy Klucevsek doesn't need more sources as it already has plenty. One just has to look at the existing entry in the article's {{authority control}} to see pages of recordings. Or you look at the existing link to an extensive discography. The problem here is drive-by editors who don't take the time to look at what's already there. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  The idea that a blue-linked work doesn’t require an inline citation is often repeated but, as far as I can tell, has no basis in policy or guidelines. Lots of FAs have lists of works with non-blue linked entries - but I take your point about general references. I tried to collate all of the policy/guidelines around sourcing/inline citation for lists of work about a year ago here. One I missed was WP:ITNQUALITY which seems to be the strongest of them all. Most guidelines point to "appropriate" general sources and WP:V, asking for inline citations only for one of the four usual reasons.

  As I pointed out at the failed RD, many if not most relevant FAs lack inline citations for lists of works, blue linked or not, no doubt supported by general sources or, as Masem and Andrew point out, a kind of "obviousness" that published works are self-documenting (Vonnegut, Johnson, Cardus, etc). I don't often see this approach at ITN/RD. Even FLs of lists of works do not always have inline citations for every entry (see: List of works by Kwee Tek Hoay, List of Maya Angelou works, LCD Soundsystem discography) - usually the citations are just to verify additional details such as awards or sales. Others have a strange arrangement where the published work has an inline citation to itself, sometimes via a library catalogue or, for music, to user-generated Discogs): List of works by John Buchan, Works of John Betjeman, etc.

  For appearances or information within a work, FLs often cite from the published work itself (see List of songs recorded by Kylie Minogue and List of songs recorded by She & Him). Which suggests that we can rely on the published work for most basic information about itself. Or we have the strange situation where one could use Tension (Kylie Minogue album) as in an inline citation to verify ""10 Out of 10" on List of songs recorded by Kylie Minogue but would have to find a different inline citation to verify Tension (Kylie Minogue album) on Kylie Minogue albums discography.

  I'm not making a case for Guy Klucevsek which is far from an FA (or even a B-class) or for any kind of general position. I just would like some clarity on best practice and for ITN/RD to be in concert with the rest of the project. I am really terrible with the policy/guidelines aspect of the project (perhaps the mainspace stuff too) so please point out where I've got things wrong. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I see that Loretta Swit has recently died. She is already on the main page of the French and Spanish language Wikipedias while her article was the top read on the English wikipedia and I read through it myself. But the English ITN is failing yet again. I notice that Ad Orientem has tag-bombed the article but I don't see them or any other ITN regular doing anything productive about this. He and QuicoleJR seem to expect others to do busywork that they are not prepared to do themselves. I made an effort for George Wendt but am not rushing to waste my time again. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'd do it myself if I could, but I simply can't right now. I'm actually not sure that we should require 100% sourcing for RD, but that seems to be the active consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the current rules make RD function as a drive to improve articles. It's not directly related to a person's real-life merits. —Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Because we have the wide allowance that the death of any person that is notable can be in the RD line, it seems fully reasonable to show where there is sourcing to be required for those articles that are nominated to help those that want to make sure they make the RD line. Masem (t) 23:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  ... I don't see them or any other ITN regular doing anything productive about this: WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. —Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCOMPULSORY says we should "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." and so tag-bombing is contrary to that advice. The problem is that ITN does not have a productive culture. DYK is quite different and so is a powerhouse of productivity. I just nominated an article for DYK and the process was quite demanding, requiring two QPQ reviews: Pro Plancio and Rockbank railway station. Those topics were both GAs and so already had passed a quality review but I used a detailed checklist to confirm numerous issues such as copyvio and citations. And now I've passed them they will get further inspection by set-builders and promoters.

  Now my topic in that case was a recent death – I clipped the Times obituary last year. The subject was quite prominent in his field but ITN would have been a waste of time. But now DYK will give him a blurb on the main page. DYK gets things done while ITN wastes too much effort on idle talk and non-essentials.

  DYK achieves this productivity by having a good process which places clear demands on its participants and so incentivises productive behaviour in which the parties understand their obligations and own the results. It also helps that admin powers are only needed for the final formalities which come after lots of detailed processing has been done.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  DYK *still* requires a quality target article, so all that tells me is that it likely took a year to get the article at the state it was at the person's death to the quality needed to be on the main page by the time of the DYK nomination. DYK reviewers are not the ones fixing articles to get them to quality levels but may offer input on what needs fixing, which is the equivalent of tagging an article in the case above.

  Again, I will stress that the ITNRD approach we have, any notable person/biological entity can be mentioned on the RD line, is going to lead to a lot of nominations of people with articles that just aren't ready, given how little rigor most bios get while the person is alive. And for that reason, we don't have the time to being giving a lot of extensive advice or input on what needs to be fixed, but at least identifying the problems is what helps those that want to see the article on the main page to know what to fix. A lot of times, many RDs are just deaths that editors have seen in the news but have not spent time editing the article, but have no interest to see it all the way through, just making sure the RD is noted in case others want to fix it. All of this is in line with NOTCOMPULSORY. We ''could'' go back to the dark ages and get rid of the RD lines or the broad allowance, and require editors to argue forever over important, which would likely help to boost quality, but I don't think anyone wants to go back to that period. Masem (t) 12:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• I just happened to look at Gene Wilder – the famous actor whose article has been read over 20 million times. It's rated as a GA and Vital and was posted at ITN in 2016 when he died. And its filmography doesn't have citations. Looking at the talk page, nobody is bothered by this. If they have a query about a particular role, they raise the matter on the talk page. This confirms the OP's point that we seem to have some WP:CREEP so that ITN is out of line with traditional norms and expectations. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'll need to dig a bit more but I note the time from nom to posting there was under an hour, and the only comments addressing quality was saying it was a GA, which is not infallible. Masem (t) 23:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  So as a couple of other points: Its GA was in 2008. I would be suspect of any GA that is older than 5 years, only because our standards for GA change significantly about that often, and definitely what was okay in 2008 would definitely not pass in 2016. So that again points to relying too much on the GA process. (FA process changes less frequently, plus being attended by several editors helps to assure that's a better measure, but even there, an FA older than 5-10 years should not be considered a free pass). Second point is that the state of the article as of the first edit on August 30, the day after his death, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Wilder&oldid=736809000] shows that all but one of the -ology entries are blue links where his role is clearly obvious. And the others would have been easily supported by duplication of refs from the body to there. It would have been easily fixable if that were nominated today. Most RDs that fail on the filmography or bibliography table suffer from the lack of any sourcing in the article to start for minor roles that are not clearly obvious. I'd also note that today's version of the article includes shows that are not at all mentioned elsewhere in the body and which he had only trivial roles that would not be obvious from the blue link (one case, the Eligible Dentist, is not even a blue link), so those would clearly fail today, and this should be sent to GAR due to these problems. Masem (t) 00:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Is there really any sort of problem of notable actors being credited in their filmographies for films they were not in? You can generally just watch a movie and see that the actor was in it. Why not presumptively shift the sourcing requirement to the cast list on the article for the film itself? BD2412 T 00:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  As I've mentioned, most of the sourcing problems are not for cases where the actor's role is obvious, but for the guest and cameo roles that either require reading the full credits or even are undocumented. That's 90% of what I have seen being the problem when it comes to actors. At the same time, the body of the article for high use actors appear to already document every film and work with a source, so there should also not be an issue of just reusing those sources in that table. Masem (t) 00:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Why not presumptively shift the sourcing requirement to the cast list on the article for the film itself?: Simply, WP:CIRCULAR:

  Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source.

  —Bagumba (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  There's no significant problem with the articles – I don't recall any case where this has been a major issue. The important and significant roles are, by their nature, instantly spotted and corrected if they should be vandalised or otherwise mistaken.

  The actual problem is that ITN looks biased and bad. Consider: George Wendt ("Norm"), Loretta Swit ("Hotlips") and Jonathan Joss ("John Redcorn"). Each of these died recently and was the top read article on the English Wikipedia with millions of readers. Other language Wikipedias didn't hesitate to post the deaths on their main pages but the English ITN hasn't. This suggests to the readership that ITN is anti-American and/or incompetent. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  En.wiki main page requires featured articles to represent some of the best of our work. I don't know if that is a requirement on other wikis but given how much larger en.wiki is, it is completely reasonable that we have that. And I very much doubt that the anti US aspect actually exists, given that we already weigh in favor of covering more US people in the first place. Masem (t) 13:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Masem keeps saying this but it's just his opinion and not an official requirement. The only sections on the main page that are focussed on featuring the best of our work are obviously the Featured article/list/picture. DYK is focussed on new articles. OTD is focussed on anniversaries. And ITN is focussed on topics in the news. These latter have some minimum standards but they do not require the articles to be the best.

  Moreover, as others have pointed out, even the featured articles don't require sourcing for lists of works. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not necessarily "best", but WP:ITNQUALITY has long read:

  Articles should be well referenced ... Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources.

  —Bagumba (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:ITNQUALITY was created in 2022 by Bagumba! That's after 20 years of ITN managing fine without. Classic creep. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  If someone starts an RFC to no longer require full filmography/bibliography/etc. sourcing for RD, I would likely support. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, but the related text at Wikipedia:In the news existed long before that shortcut. Yes, that is possible. —Bagumba (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  ITN is not a news ticker, it's to showcase quality articles that happen to be in the news. This must come with the recognition that despite saying all notable people who due can be listed on RD that because very few of our articles are of actually quality (despite the strong sourcing requirement from BLP) that many RDs will not pass for posting. We need editors to be proactive to bring bio articles up to sourcing requirements while the person is still alive and not having to scramble after their death to get there. Masem (t) 14:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Also to add:both the DYK on OTD processes require quality checks as part of approving an item to appear on the main page. Their purpose is not solely to feature new content or selected anniversaries, but to showcase such articles that represent quality work from editors. Masem (t) 14:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  No, that's more misinformation from Masem. DYK's goals are stated at WP:DYKAIM. The five goals do not include what Masem said. Moreover, WP:DYKNOT makes it quite clear that

  DYK is not: A smaller-scale version of either featured content or good articles, though selected good articles do appear in the DYK box. Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page, but do not have to be of very high quality. As DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia.

  So, it's very clear that Masem's assertion is false. The main page not always about featuring the best work. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, all sections have minimum quality standards. —Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  We are generally far more forgiving on quality to freshly created articles, though still expect impevible sourcing. An RD bio article nearly always has had years, perhaps decades, to get the sourcing up to expectations for a BLP, so it should not be the case of allowing those to slide as Wed do for a fresh article. Masem (t) 18:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I nominated Susan Brownmiller for RD last week, and despite there being no issues with the article, the admins refused to post it, and the nomination was archived by a bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  That one is unfortunate. The nomination got archived with nobody in the community having reviewed it. It was flagged with "(Needs review)" on the last day, but nobody got to it. Sometimes an admin might notice it and choose to semi-WP:SUPERVOTE post it, but that's hit or miss if nobody else reviewed it. The community can only flag it for review earlier and hope it gets attention. The system failed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  The Susan Brownmiller article might have had an issue if it had been reviewed. It has a section listing the books that she wrote. Several of those entries are not cited – "Shirley Chisholm: A Biography (Doubleday, 1970)", for example. This would not have bothered me as it's easy to verify this from the information given but other regulars would have tag-bombed it.

  Now Hawkeye7 is one of our best editors who regularly produces featured articles. If they felt that sources were needed for this list of books then they could have added them easily. But they didn't. This requirement should be dropped as there is no consensus for it and it is disruptive.

  As for the issue of getting RDs actioned, ITN might follow the example of DYK and require a QPQ.

  The good news is that Susan Brownmiller got a significant spike in readership regardless. RD is nice-to-have, not essential.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 06:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  ITN might follow the example of DYK and require a QPQ: Worth discussing. Many nominations aren't close to ready and nobody works on them, including the nominator. Not sure if there are historical reasons for allowing this, but seems one can monitor Portal:Current events and Deaths in 2025, instead of relying on someone nominating them to be informed about what's in the news. —Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  We could add language that says that for non-blurb RDs that we expect that the nominator feels the article is at or very near the quality before they make the nomination, or that they themselves would participate in the improvement to bring the RD article to quality, such that we are not encouraging editors from nominating any RD that they happen to see in the news and then move on to something else. Nothing that can be enforced unless there's a clear long term problem with a drive-by RD nominator, but maybe would encourage earlier steps in the quality department. Masem (t) 12:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: Start an RFC and I'll probably support. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Polish election

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When exactly will the Polish election receive something similar to the lavish and prolonged exposure that the Romanian one has had? Never mind that Wikipedia looks rather weird now with its ITN focus on Suriname and its absolute silence on one of the largest countries of the EU. Dahn (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

We should really remove the banner above: "Nominating a new item to be posted? Go to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C)."

First time I heard of Romanian biaz tho. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I will not nominate the article, as I do not want to have any part in assessing its quality; I am just amused by the dragging-of-feet. And of course it is not a "Romanian bias", as amusing as that would be, it is a likely bias in favor of Dan's brand of politics, and manifestly not in favor of Nawrocki's. Same old thing, merely shuffled around to a new venue. Dahn (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so this is bias in favor of a certain wing of politics. The Polish election was just nominated on June 1. To compare, the Romanian election was nominated on May 18, then was posted on May 21. Unless the 2025 NBA Finals and the 2025 Stanley Cup Finals end in 4 games, once posted, the Polish election will stay for quite some time as well here. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You could start by actually commenting on /supporting the nomination on the Candidates page, if you find it so important. Moaning here won't help getting it published faster. Khuft (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Why was the death of an obscure socialist writer in Kenya "In the News" and even an administrative change in tiny Andorra - but not the victory of the conservative candidate to be President of Poland? The political bias of the people who control Wikipedia is so obvious it is a joke. 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:E0C5:51F4:DB4D:77E2 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That should be "from Kenya" rather than "in Kenya". But still not world news - although very sad for family and friends. And pushing a story from Andorra and ignoring the Presidential election in Poland? 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:E0C5:51F4:DB4D:77E2 (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

We should really remove the notice at the top. People have failed in reading comprehension (LOL). Howard the Duck (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

"The people who control Wikipedia" - You mean, you and me? _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ITN/R status for directly-elected heads of state that are not the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government

We've seen two cases recently (Poland and Romania) where the people here have no problem in endorsing even it is not ITNR. There are a some more countries that do this (e.g. Singapore and Ireland). This still excludes monarchies (e.g. Spain and the Netherlands) and presidents elected by electoral college (e.g. Germany, India and Italy).

FWIW, I think we should also give a pass on a change in the leadership of the Commonwealth of Nations. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Not being ITNR does not preclude such elections from being posted, if there's community consensus that they're notable. Khuft (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I know, but for these 2 recent ones, there's near universal support for these. Singaporean election articles are always verbose, and ITN has historically been very lenient in posting Irish stuff. The last Singaporean election in 2023 was posted with difficulty, with the same issue as it wasn't ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The concern with the non executive office holder is that they be just a figurehead in some govt orgs, so it's not really significant. I would rather see us maybe create a list of those positions that actually do have significant sway on how the country operates particularly with an eye on foreign relations, and add those as specific cases to ITNR that are beyond the list table we use. Masem (t) 13:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Back in the old days, encyclopedias demonstrated that they are updated if the listed head of state is the latest one. I know people insist on ITN being a news source, but for things such as this, we should probably think Wikipedia as an encyclopedia instead of being CNN.

Now, re: figurehead, I'd flip my argument above: whether or not it is a figurehead or not is irrelevant; if there's enough interest on it, ITN should at the very least consider it. For example, 2023 Singaporean presidential election had a turnout of 93%; that's way better than Western democracies, people were interested to vote. In contrast, 2018 Irish presidential election turnout was just 43.9%, but it was posted, because lol it's Ireland, we post anything from Ireland.

TL;DR: Presidents being "figureheads" is irrelevant. If there's enough interest to it, post it. Also, we post anything related to Ireland. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)