Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 7

message: Can an admin actually update ITN sometime? --Midnighttonight 08:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your constructive criticism, we await more in the future. --Golbez 13:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Based on your contributions, I'm guessing you're annoyed no one's put up the Tim Selwyn story. Do try to point this out next time you're angry. Personally, I don't think I'll put it up, but other admins might think it's worthy. --Golbez 13:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, I was having a bad day yesterday. --Midnighttonight 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely fair enough, it happens to all of us. I probably was too. :) --Golbez 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it more likely now that he's been found guilty of sedition? --Midnighttonight 07:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be. Propose it on the candidates page. --Golbez 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: We (and the real media) have had this in headlines like 5 times.  I'm just gonna go out on a limb and suggest we wait for actual proof this time.--Pharos 07:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line says "# Terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is killed in a Predator UAV", was he travelling in it? Lapinmies 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The report has been confirmed - it's definitely him. Raul654 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Iraqi PM made the announcement, so I've changed it from "News outlets report..." Harro5 08:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: the picture is incorrectly tagged.  The US Gov released the video, but did not create it, so it's not PD.  It is, on the other hand, really really strong fair use. Night Gyr 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarqawi 

message: Wikipedia is not a news site. If you're turning to the front page of an encyclopedia to read the latest news headlines, you're on the wrong site.
But current events and background articles about them are of interest to many people, and the In The News section on the main page tries to accommodate this by listing a few major news-events and link to encyclopedic articles about them. But it's very short, so: How about an "In The News" portal? No, not wikinews. Not a portal meant to be a news source or even be very up to date with the latest news. We're still only an encyclopedia. But a portal where we colect short blurbs and links to articles about people and events that are currently in the news.
It could have its "featured article" equivalent which for instance these days could be the FIFA World Cup, an excellent article that give lots of background information about the world cup. Then there could be a "politics" box where we list headlines and links to encyclopedia articles giving background information on current elections, people and politics issues that are currently widely reported on in the media. A sports section would also be appropriate here, these days linking to the articles on, say, the Stanley cup, French open, the 2006 World Cup, and so on. And we could have a recent deaths section. A "did you know" equivalent could contain trivia about current events with links to the articles containing them.
I repeat, this should not be anything like wikinews. We would just include blurbs from and links to good background articles on current and maybe upcoming events. We could put up a blurb on, say, the United States Senate election, 2006 many weeks before the election date, maybe in an "upcoming events" section in the portal. For people who like to get background information on upcoming events early.
Is this a good or bad idea? I know this is not the place to suggest new portals (Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals is), but I thought I'd get comments here first. Shanes 16:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd much rather all portals were deleted frankly, I can't stand them. Dmn € Դմն 18:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Have you read this bit further down the page? Carcharoth 23:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to think that some sort of reform of Current events to portalize and at the same time make it more ITN-like is what we need.  We really shouldn't have our efforts going in too many directions here.  Please see Talk:Current events#Should Current events be in the portal namespace?--Pharos 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a "In The News" portal? 

message: To ignore the World Cup results, add the following to your User:YOURNAME/monobook.css file, and after saving, press CTRL+F5 to refresh the file: 
#worldcup { display: none; }
Uh, if this is something that people need to ignore, it shouldn't be there. Wikinews is the palce for that. A link would be appropriate. pschemp | talk 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding 2006 World Cup results

message: *Violetriga: There's a vote.
*David Levy: Yes, but there are various compromises, and people who haven't opposed have made points other than voting.
*Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
*David Levy: Majority does not rule Wikipedia.
*Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
*David Levy: WP:NOT a democracy.
*Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
*David Levy: There is, but the validity of the vote is questionable.
*Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
*David Levy: Other major events have only had their finals listed/reported.
*Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
*David Levy: The relevant articles haven't been updated in any meaningful fashion, and that's an ITN requirement.
*Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
*David Levy: Majority does not rule Wikipedia.
*Violetriga: Ah, so you'll agree to the outcome of the vote, then.
-Splash - tk 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't trying to argue anything else.  violet/riga (t) 21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of this discussion

message: According to 2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Knockout_stages, teams start being eliminated on June 24.  The results of these games would be acceptable to me on ITN; with these, there more of a story line (x team beats y team, 2-1, advancing to the Quarter finals of the 2006 FIFA World Cup) that fits with headline style used for all the other news stories.  That's what we did with the Winter Olympics (just selected a couple highlights, and wrote them in that style). Until then, I don't think we need all the group match scores on the main page, and the link to the portal is good. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Teams start being eliminated on June 24" - No, it's far earlier than that. Which is why these group stage games are so important - some sides have virtually been knocked out already (it's fair to say that Serbia and Montenegro are in dire straits for instance, their match against the Netherlands is likely to determine who finishes 2nd). Further, many teams will be eliminated after two group games (though they will play out their 3rd, they may not be able to progress regardless of result). There's also an issue about neutrality - at least a score list is both comprehensive and neutral. Picking out highlights is very hard. And depending on which country you are in, of course, completely different things may be highlights anyway! Trinidad and Tobago's 0-0 draw with Sweden was a footballing sensation (especially in T&T), Poland's surprise loss was also quite a major story worldwide (imagine what it was like in Poland). So we already have things that are highlightable, the problem is finding a neutral way to do it. Scores are at least concise, comprehensive and neutral for the time being. Once the semi-finals happen, headline style will be far easier. TheGrappler 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people don't follow the World Cup as closely.  For us, headline-style highlights that say things like x team is eliminated, or y team advances... would be more helpful than straight scores.  At this point, you say there are too many games to pick out highlights.  That's why rather than picking out highlights for the main page, we can list all highlights with background context in the portal.  You can explain if a particular score means that a team was knocked out.  Or mention how a particular player had an outstanding game, scoring the winning goal, etc.  Scores without context are not as suitable for ITN, and break the long-used style. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Knockout stage

message: Given the way that this page has descended into ping-pong reiterations of old arguments, we need to find a better way to make progress. It's starting to resemble a vote... and we have one of them already (Talk:Main Page/2006 World Cup poll)! In fact it is starting to resemble an extremely bad-tempered one. I am going to make a couple of suggestions about things we need to stop discussing because they really aren't getting anywhere, and a number of discussion points that are all alive in the threads above (often all over the place and with endless repeating), with summaries of the more common positions that I could identify and a summary of reasons given or advantages and disadvantages noted. Effectively this is an effort to summarise and refactor the increasingly messy discussion above. If people wish to add new sections they can do so, space has been left after the discussion points for people to post. On the other hand, people are quite at libery to ignore this entire posting!
===Let's quit discussing/scoring points off things already established===
* Anybody who reads this page really ought to be able to grasp the magnitude of the World Cup. (If they can't, they can come over and visit me and get exposed to the  blanket radio/TV/newspaper/conversational coverage of the World Cup, and the horrific sight of hordes of men wearing football shirts that are far too tight for them...). The extent to which the magnitude of the World Cup should influence the inclusion of scores is one of the key points in this debate.
* A degree of coverage that seems unusually low will give some readers an impression of North American bias (I think this is a fair comment, largely undisputed; in particular, long-standing readers may well compare this to previous coverage of the Olympic Games - which may or may not have been a mistake, but those not involved in editing Wikipedia won't be aware of the debate about this matter)
** Most of the suspicion has been directed toward Americans (not Canadians), and the fact that the Commonwealth Games (in which the U.S. doesn't even participate) was featured in this manner should serve as a mitigating factor (when it comes to people's perception).  —David Levy 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed framework for moving the World Cup dispute forward 

message: * Anybody who reads this page really ought to be able to grasp the magnitude of the World Cup. (If they can't, they can come over and visit me and get exposed to the  blanket radio/TV/newspaper/conversational coverage of the World Cup, and the horrific sight of hordes of men wearing football shirts that are far too tight for them...). The extent to which the magnitude of the World Cup should influence the inclusion of scores is one of the key points in this debate.
* A degree of coverage that seems unusually low will give some readers an impression of North American bias (I think this is a fair comment, largely undisputed; in particular, long-standing readers may well compare this to previous coverage of the Olympic Games - which may or may not have been a mistake, but those not involved in editing Wikipedia won't be aware of the debate about this matter)
** Most of the suspicion has been directed toward Americans (not Canadians), and the fact that the Commonwealth Games (in which the U.S. doesn't even participate) was featured in this manner should serve as a mitigating factor (when it comes to people's perception).  —David Levy 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's quit discussing/scoring points off things already established

message: A good idea in many such edit wars is to revert to a long-standing status quo. Unfortunately there are three different viewpoints about the status quo:
* The status quo is that it is standard to include distinct subsections at the bottom of ITN for the most important multinational sporting events. These precedents include the Summer and Winter Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. There is no doubt that the World Cup is as big a tournament as these. Normally we don't have a subsection, but that is because these events are by their nature rather rare (else they wouldn't be seen as so important).
* The status quo is not to include sporting results in their own subsection. We usually don't have such a subsection. The previous uses of such a subsection were incorrect and should not be repeated.
* The status quo is that it is not standard to have distinct subsections for sporting events and that this may be in breach of policies or guidelines. However it is also part of the status to recognise that the most important sporting events may justify deviations from these standards.
Is this a fair summary of the current situation? Do we actually want to maintain the status quo, or do we expect it to change as a result of this discussion? TheGrappler 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishing the status quo

message: * Perfectly: they come complete with several updated articles, and are newsworthy in at least two countries. A list of scores is more concise and more clearly NPOV than attempting to elaborate on recent games (The degree of updating is disputed and variable, however.)
* Very badly: if the match doesn't deserve an article of its own, it shouldn't be on ITN. (Though note that an article of its own isn't required for most ITN items, merely that there should be an article which has been updated.)
**I haven't seen anyone argue that a match requires a dedicated article to qualify for ITN.  We just want to see a reasonably detailed update to an article.  If an addition consists entirely of the score itself (or no more than a few sentences), ITN isn't serving its intended purpose.  —David Levy 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How would individual scores correspond to current ITN procedures?

message: * One possibility is linking to an appropriate portal for updates. Advantages: less space taken. Promotes other areas of the site. Readers are only one click away from the information they want. Helps to make clear that Wikipedia (and ITN especially) is not a news or sports site. Fans who have recorded the games won't see spoilers that they weren't expecting to find on a page that doesn't ordinarily list sports scores.  Disadvantages: readers wishing to see changes in the relevant WP articles (which is what ITN is for) are now two clicks away. Fails to recognise the distinctive and unusual nature and importance of the World Cup. Liable to sit unchanged for weeks at the bottom of ITN. TheGrappler 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there other options? What are their advantages and disadvantages?

message: * There are strong opinions both ways.
* Very many people do not believe a poll is a viable way of finding a solution but others disagree.
* So far the majority of voters have been in favour of inclusion, but the majority of those who disagree with the straw poll method also seem to be opposed to including the scores.
How can the straw poll be used in formulating consensus in this case? Should we go with the majority? How can we take account of the opinions of the "votes are evil" voters, who are following a well-established WP practice and have views on the matter they wish to be heard? TheGrappler 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What can we conclude from the (ongoing) straw poll?

message: Having an underlying principle (e.g. including the world's two "largest" multinational sporting events, the Summer Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, or even having a wider rule that might also bring in the Winter Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Rugby/Cricket World Cup) may prevent descent into listing live feeds for regional team competitions in minor sports, etc. But could common sense do the job instead? Is the FIFA World Cup so exceptional that it should clearly be treated differently? How do we decide for other events - case by case or following a general rule? While the Summer Olympics precedent seems to have considerable support (as well as some strenuous opposition), the Winter Olympic and Commonwealth Games descisions seem to be more commonly regarded as mistakes. How can we decide? Do we need a general principle to be formulated before including World Cup scores or should we wait until nerves are less frayed and the dust has settled? TheGrappler 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there an underlying principle rather than a "World Cup Exemption"?

message: It seems that the "Football World Cup" results dispute (and other disputes) have arisen from the way people seem to use "In the News" for several functions and in several ways:
*To browse daily and follow links to articles that sound interesting and are topical (in the news).  (intended use) 
*Following up some news that was read elsewhere, and wanting to find a Wikipedia article for background on the topic.  (incorrect use - there are better ways to find such articles and ITN cannot hope to cover all major headlines) 
*To keep up-to-date with the latest news from around the world  (incorrect use - there are news websites that are better at this sort of thing) 
The trouble is that the more people see things like World Cup scores, the more they will come back and expect the ITN section to give them news. My opinion is that we must avoid creating unrealistic expectations, though this may already be too late.
How do other people use ITN? I use it to browse, but I must admit that I do catch myself using it for the other two purposes as well. The difference is that I don't (usually) get upset when something I thought might be there isn't there. I go and look somewhere else. How do other people react to the balance and content of ITN, and what are your expectations of what you think you will see there throughout the day? Carcharoth 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps now would be a good time to mention again the idea I mooted a few weeks back... might a slight name change to something like Topics in the news better underscore for the casual reader and submitter that this is first and foremost about identifying encyclopedia topics rather than identifying important stories?  "In the news" without any intial noun is a fairly broadly-used title for any sort of collection of newsbits in a variety of media (off the top of my head I can think of Craig Kilborn's parallel usage of it and a few others). A tweak might cast a bit more emphasis onto the idea that these are links to updated articles, not a newsticker in and of itself The Tom 07:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. This is probably the best place to discuss such name changes. I like your suggestion. There are several other suggestions, but unfortunately the discussion is currently fragmented over several different locations: Talk:Main Page#Edit break; Talk:Main Page/2006 World Cup poll#Support (search for "Behind the news"); and some old suggestions at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_71#ITN_rename?. I'll add a link to this discussion to the one at the poll. Carcharoth 09:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else up for Topics in the news? The Tom 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. You may need to advertise this idea more widely. Try the Main Page talk? Carcharoth 10:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I think I've come around to supporting some kind of change along these lines.  Either "Topics in the news" or "Topical updates" or something similar would explain the purpose of it a lot better.--Pharos 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "In the News" 

message: As the news about Albania is no longer the top headline, someone should replace the picture. Rain74 11:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We welcome your suggestions on what to replace it with. --Golbez 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanian flag 

message: "Albania (flag pictured) signs a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, a first step toward joining the European Union."
I believe 'stabilisation' is correctly spelled 'stabilization' in Modern US English.  However, I am aware of languages utilizing the Latin alphabet outside of the US sometimes using an 's' in places where a 'z' or 'c' is used in Modern US English, such as 'practise'.  As this is a treaty origination from the EU, there might be nothing wrong; however since this is a news article in the English wikipedia, which takes precidence, UK or US English?
I just wanted to point that out as a possible error.  Thank you. 
The Linguist 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No error, the Euros use "s". Since the bit is about Europe, we err towards the British usage. --Golbez 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, in answer to your question 'which takes precidence, UK or US English', if the news story involves an area which uses english, IMO their styles should be use. Hence for articles about the EU, UK, Irish and Maltese English spellings should be used. Dmn € Դմն 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Spelling Error 

message: I'm not expressing any opinion on what (if any) mention of the World Cup should be in ITN, but can we change the mention that is there so that it is grammatically correct? It should read: The 2006 FIFA World Cup continues in Germany. (details). "2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany continues" is a bad sentence.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would say it's out-and-out gramatically incorrect, but awkwardly sounding it was.  Fixed. The Tom 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup grammar 

message: How long are we keeping stories in the template? For instance, the marine reserve was established 3 days ago. is there a policy of when to take down the stories? I would rather see more smaller less important storie then old large important ones. --Flying Canuck 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old news 

message: Is it possible for ITN items to make the geographical context clearer? The current top two items are:
*The Miami Heat win their first National Basketball Association championship, defeating the Dallas Mavericks.
*In the National Hockey League, the Carolina Hurricanes defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the 2006 Stanley Cup.
In both cases, the only clue as to where these sports events are taking place is the names. Not everyone will know where Dallas, Miami, Carolina and Edmonton are. It would be much better if the terms "USA" and "North America" (for the Stanley Cup) were used. This should even apply for the expensive painting item that gives the geographical context as "New York", though in this case more of an argument can be made for people being more likely to know where New York is. Carcharoth 09:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, why do American sports results seem to get such exhaustive coverage?  The criteria for ITN state quite clearly that only events of "international importance, or at least interest" should be included, and furthermore criterion 1 implies that sporting news should be "rare"; it's hard to see how the NBA fits with that, particularly given that national sporting leagues outside the USA are typically excluded (there was no mention of the FA Cup final this year, nor of Juventus winning the Serie A title). So to have not just one but two North American results at the same time seems rather excessive, and certainly does not reflect the global outlook Wikipedia is supposed to prize. — Haeleth Talk 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, after reading the debate and discussion above regarding putting the World Cup on ITN, I think the inclusion of the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League was to make a point... but that is my opinion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still hoping that some admin will actually make the changes I suggested, and before the items drop off the page. The changes I suggested can be seen at Talk:Main Page#Geographical context in "In the news". Carcharoth 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical context 

message: Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church is the first woman elected primate in the Anglican Communion. This should read 'of the U.S. Episcopal Church' - many nations have Episcopal Churches, Bishop Jefferts is not their primate also. --Aoratos 09:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done.  --  Zanimum 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US is not the default 

message: I know this is confusing, and our own article (International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) doesn't help much, but the Israeli and Palestinian national societies were not admitted to the International Committee of the Red Cross as is currently indicated. The committee is its own organization that doesn't have national members. The two societies were admitted to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and recognized as part of the movement generally, by the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (another ICRC, confusing I know) which represents the movement as a whole and includes representatives from the Federation member societies as well as the Committee. Ddye 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  Fixed, but that's one long link.  The Tom 18:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Cross confusion 

message: You have listed on this page that the third city to gain potential to win the 2014 olympic bid is Pyeongchang. The city, even though it is spelled with a lowercase "c" here, the [olympic.org olympic website] lists it as PyeongChang (uppercase "C", no space) (see here). I would change it, but the page is locked. → JARED (t)  12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: The article doesn't actually say that this is the biggest exercise overall since Vietnam, or at least it doesn't to my reading. The ITN entry by contrast does- which is correct? To be honest, per my comment on the candidates page, I question whether this entry really should be up there at all anyway. Badgerpatrol 03:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US/PRC Navy story

message: Why aren't both company names boldfaced?  Are they not on equal footing somehow?  --Merovingian {T C @} 11:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arcelor and Mittal" 

message: The figure on the Warren Buffett story on the In the News section is incorrect. BBC, ABC, and Fortune (the original reporter of the news) ALL put the figure at $37bn (USD). May some admin please change this. ~ clearthought 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffett story 

message: I would like to know the source used to report that Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed to allow a referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh on its status. I couldnt find anything though. Baku87 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the highlighted article, and also according to Current events, the reference is armenialiberty.org.-gadfium 09:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think this is a reliable source, its a Armenian site and offcourse they would want to report something like this. This isnt reported on any Azeri or any international news either. I think it should be removed as being unreliable news. Baku87 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially denies these rumors, see . I suggest we remove it, since it is not a relaible news. Grandmaster 18:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second this.  I don't have an opinion on the bias of the cited news source, but if the only citation for this is a rather obscure web site and no major news outlets have picked it up and one of the parties to the supposed agreement is explicitly denying it, then I think that this shouldn't be on the front page. --Jfruh (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: This story is entirely based on a single mention on a rather obscure website.  No major news outlet has picked it up, and the Azeri government has explicitly said that it isn't true.   . It's increasingly embarassing the longer it stays up.  Where can we contact people who have the ability to change the main age? --Jfruh (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Armenian, Azeri Leaders ‘Agreed To Karabakh Referendum’." The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have accepted the idea of enabling the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to decide their status in a referendum but disagree on other, less significant issues, the Armenian Foreign Ministry said late Monday.  Agreed, and then... And if Golbez was here I'm sure he'd ask for the pertinent [referendum-specific] article. Btw, Pharos, nicely done with turning Operation Summer Rain into major incursion. Better late than never. El_C 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, they're both actually from the same news source (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) interviewing the same person.  The article I linked to was a direct follow-up to the article you're referencing.  It appears they may have reached some sort of agreement on "principles", but the Azeri government is currently denying it, so it's probably not appropriate for ITN as of yet.--Pharos 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Right, and the second article I linked to is the followup to that. El_C 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ah, I see, sorry I missed that.  We haven't updated OSCE Minsk Group lately, though; I guess that'll be the core later.--Pharos 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azerbaijan-Armenia story needs to come down 

message: A proposal to establish Portal:Current events and have it replace Current events has been accepted after a couple of discussions (Talk:Current_events#Should Current events be in the portal namespace? and Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Portal:Current_events). One of the few changes introduced with the switch of namespaces is the introduction of  as a Highlight section of the new portal.  This switch could happen as soon as July 1 00:00 UTC (see Talk:Current events#Switch to Portal:Current events for a thread about this timing), but once it does happen, the "More current events" link becomes superfluous, at least within the portal.  I wasn't going to worry about this right away, but I wanted to mention it since at some point soon it's worth changing.  It appears that there are two simple ways to deal with this
#use a version of  that excludes "Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events..."
#Since the offending text is wrapped with a "noprint", exclude it using styles.
Any recommendations?  Thanks—Kayaker 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that this hasn't been responded to here yet by anyone, and something has been chewing at me that probably should be aired. While nobody would dispute that In the news... and Current events are quite tightly bound together, by transcluding ITN as "highlights" on the new Portal I'm fearful of opening up more general confusion, simply because ITN isn't, strictly speaking, a "top stories" subset of the broader Current Events page.  There are some fairly crucial distinctions in the regulations used on each side of the divide: current events doesn't emphatically need a substantially-updated article, while ITN does.  Current events has inline citations, while ITN does not.  Overall balance in terms of regional and topical content is a reasonably influential concern for most ITN updaters, but it doesn't figure so much on broader CE.  We already have ongoing headaches in which the submission criteria for ITN are unfortunately not made explicitly clear enough to many would-be submitters, and muddling the matter by implying that ITN is just particularly important excerpts of the broader CE can't help us in that problem.  Additionally, because all ITN updates are supposed to be on CE anyway, the highlights box inevitably will duplicate text, or perhaps worse, inexactly duplicate text, which appears a few lines down on the main CE page.  The Tom 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending switch to [[Portal:Current events]] 

message: I was a little unsure about whether to add the Ken Lay death, since we normally don't list deaths unless they're of world leaders (although we have had deaths of other icons), but the fact that the entry also informs us that his conviction has been abated (ie, it's as if he was never indicted or convicted) seems like it should be enough. After all, we did have an entry when he was convicted, so why not when his conviction was voided? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 19:42
:I did make a change. It said that he is now "legally innocent". "Innocent" is not a legal term despite what people usually think. It's guilty or not guilty. --Woohookitty(meow) 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this story should be news, however, it seems this justification for including it has backed into a "fact" regarding abatement that is not yet decided.  It may be the result, and the general rule, but wait for the prosecutors and the courts to weigh in on this. Castellanet 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammar: "Ken Lay dies" would be better as "Ken Lay has died" Thatcher131 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ken Lay

message: (regarding the previous edit by Delirium), we do have an article about the plane crash, 9_July_2006_Irkutsk_S7_Airlines_crash. Could an admin who sees this readd it with reference to the article please? Thanks.--Kchase02 T 07:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian plane crash 

message: Completely ignoring any procedure I added the world cup.... I haven't looked at the guidelines in quite some time... I suppose that makes me a failure.... in any cause.  Pardon and I hope any procedural mistake I made can be fixed. gren グレン 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. gren グレン 21:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Be civil. --Golbez 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The error on the FIFA World Cup Trophy page which led to this error on ITN is now fixed. Thank you, Joturner. -- PFHLai 22:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup