Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

For clarity, I do not think that a Liechtenstein election falls under NOTNEWS, nor would I ever make that claim. In fact, I am an inclusionist editor who broadly supports letting more things on to ITN and letting more articles continue to exist on the encyclopedia as opposed to deleting them over notability concerns... so, my view is the precise opposite of the position you have accused me of holding in bad faith. Rather, I was using the most recent thing we had posted to ITN as an example to illustrate that the standard proposed my Masem is, in my opinion, too onerous and a misinterpretation of the NOTNEWS policy. This is because the very high bar "enduring notability" threshold, if applied consistently, would need to capture both smaller-scale elections as well as mass-casualty accidents. Nowhere at all in that rationale is a statement that Liechtenstein should not be on Wikipedia or that those articles don't deserve to be here. In the future, there is need to jump to public accusations against others so quickly. Thanks, Flip^andFlopped ツ 05:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. Admittedly, I am now more confused on what you are trying to say. I interpreted this as you saying that elections in smaller elections, such as Liechtenstein, should not be put on ITN due to them not being as notable as say other countries. I do apologise for my response being rather brash, but it rubbed me the wrong way. If this is not what you meant then it would be great to clear this up.

Also, your point about Haas was not relevant, as putting a suitable image for the newest blurb on ITN is standard practice. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to clarify. I said,

"I would argue that a sizeable chunk of even our ITNR items, such as the recent Liechtenstein elections as one example among many, do not come anywhere close to meeting the overly high bar of enduring notability which you describe."

When you read the full thread in context, it's clear I was using the Liechtenstein election article as an example - to demonstrate my view that Masem's proposed interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS is too restrictive. I never suggested that the article you worked on should not exist or is not notable.

To your second and unrelated point, I had a genuine quality concern about the choice of image used. I can see you've improved the article now though, so I am happy to go adjust my comment... that's all I was asking for. And no, we do not always accompany the newest blurb with an image (for example, not all of the blurbs below the current top blurb had a corresponding image). We regularly discuss whether an image is appropriate depending on the context, and that can include corresponding discussions about quality of the image/article. Expressing those concerns is the point of having ITN discussions.

With the utmost respect, you bringing this up now despite these two things being somewhat unrelated sort of makes it seem like you are accusing me of bad faith in another unrelated discussion out of anger or retaliation that I expressed a quality concern about articles which you worked on (Haas/2025 Liechtenstein Election). I have no issue with you or with your articles, there is no need for bludgeoning and going on the attack across other threads. Flip^andFlopped ツ 06:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I apologise for being brash, but I can assure you that there is no bludgeoning going on here. I understand why you brought up quality concerns regarding the Haas article, but your point was still not relevant to the nomination. As I and other editors pointed out, there is no quality requirement for non-bolded articles, and using suitable images for new ITN items is standard practice. Concerns for the image quality are fine to be brought up, but that has no relevance as to the article itself. TheBritinator (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | March 2025, Vol 11, Issue 3, Nos. 326, 327, 332, 333, 334 Online events: New: Alphabet run E & F | Artists+Activists | Women of the Arab World Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements from other communities: March editathons around the world Celebrate Women 2025 office hour series Tip of the month: You can access the Wikipedia Library if you have made 500+ edits, and 6+ months editing, and 10+ edits in the last 30 days, and No active blocks Moving the needle:[1] 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) 23 Dec 2024: 20.009% (2,041,741 bios, 408,531 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]