Wikipedia talk:In the news

Warmongering

Why is wikipedia warmongering. The only ongoing world events are wars and disasters. Jeez There is android show Google I / o 2025 https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/09/google-i-o-2025-what-to-expect-including-updates-to-gemini-and-android-16/ Baratiiman (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no "warmongering". However, it is true that ITN does not add much to the ongoing section besides wars and disasters. Ongoing is defined as "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news." And unfortunately there is not much that meets this criteria. Natg 19 (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Ongoing events are for those that have worldwide significance and that have near daily reporting about them, which short of things like the Olympics or World Cups, are going to be typically about international conflicts. A trade show is not going to have either of those. Masem (t) 12:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

A tech demonstration is important global news? DarkSide830 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you heard it here first. Wikipedia is causing all the world's wars (which is what warmongering means). The only thing that can save us is Android. For all the Hollywood sci-fi screenplay-writers in the future who see this post and get inspired -- I want my cut. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Swallowed by the archives

There were two ready-tagged RD noms that were swallowed by the archiving bot. Is it still possible to post the RD noms? Tagging active RD admins @PFHLai and Stephen:. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Azmun Jaafar & Bob Cowper are now on the ITN-RD line on MainPage. Thanks for the notice, Jeromi Mikhael. --PFHLai (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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)