Wikipedia talk:In the news#Radical idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leo Beenhakker died on 10 April. The article was posted on 16 April. I don't know the exact time it was posted, but this was the final edit of 16 April: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_Beenhakker&oldid=1285971367]

Here are some observations on that article:

• Citation 1 for place and date of birth is sourced to a clickbait website [https://www.merca20.com/leo-beenhakker-dies-cause-of-death-and-net-worth-of-the-former-america-and-real-madrid-coach/]. This was never questioned in the ITN process. It appears what is more important is having a source, rather than it having any credibility.
• Beenhakker's entire managerial career from 1965 to 2000 is summed up in two sentences. This era included winning the Dutch championship with Ajax and Feyenoord, and a hat-trick of Spanish titles for Real Madrid - none of which was mentioned in the prose. It is incomprehensible that this would be allowed for a current manager.
• This two-sentence 35-year section omits any mention of EIGHT clubs, per my count.
• A personal life and death section was posted with one line of personal life, unsourced. Basic Wikipedia guideline that all personal life must be sourced, is it not?
• Honours section unsourced apart from medals from governments. Aren't pages about actors sunk all the time because filmographies and awards sections aren't sourced?

Now compare to Aaron Boupendza, who died on 16 April. The nomination fell off the page when this was the state of the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Boupendza&oldid=1286912891]. Let's observe this article:

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

But...

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

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

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

: Yes, I can see that Beenhakker should not have been posted; but then I am well versed in European football and many admins may not be. I am sure I have posted RD candidates in the past in subjects I am not familiar with, just by looking that the article looks reasonably complete and sourced. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

There should be at least 6 news Baratiiman (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:The number of items is based on balancing the box's length with other main page items. Sometimes we can fit six blurbs, but most of the time we're limited to 4 or 5. Masem (t) 13:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I have added a section to the essay Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, "Not always In the news material", explaining that things may not be relevant enough for In the news, even if they can have a dedicated article. Because Trump-related news are so frequently discussed here, it is surely justified. Please check it and fix it if I understood the current consensus over Trump-related news incorrectly. Cambalachero (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)