Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 15

ITNR review process proposal

OK. So there seems to be some general consensus that we need some sort of review of the way ITNR runs, or at least some review of the items currently on ITNR, as many people have objected that there isn't any clear evidence that some or many of the items had specific consensus to place them on the list. So I propose the following simple procedure for ITNR review. This is designed to match, as closely as possible, how any other consensus reaching discussion works at Wikipedia, and still allow us to have the discussions necessary for ITNR that people want to have.

  • We start discussions in batches of 10 items from ITNR, which is to run for seven days each. Thus, ten new discussions per week, and the discussion remains open for seven days, where people decide to remove or keep items on the ITNR list.
  • At the end of the week, an uninvolved editor (we can ask at WP:AN/RFC if we need to find someone) makes the call and either removes or keeps each item. For the purpose of this discussion, no consensus is treated like no consensus elsewhere, which means that the status quo (what existed before the discussion) stays.
  • After the discussions have been closed, and results enacted, a new batch of 10 items is brought forward and discussions run for another seven days.
  • Once the entire set of current ITNR items has been reviewed, new items can be proposed, or existing items can be removed, by individually nominating them here on this page just as always.

The idea behind this procedure is to allow for us to review the entire list in an orderly manner, to use procedures and standards familiar to Wikipedians and not introduce any new novel procedures, and to eventually get the entire list reviewed. Let's just take them in order as they are now, take the first ten for the first week, and then just keep slogging through them until they're all done. That may take some considerable time, but it will at least allow for a complete review, give adequate time for people to find the discussions, think on them, and make their opinions known, and then when it's all done we can be done with it. So, what think everyone, what's the opinion on doing a procedure like this?

  • Support as nominator. --Jayron32 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle I think that maybe going by category (sports, awards, etc) might be easier to keep track of then a hard limit of 10. Also think the current ITN/R should be frozen while the process runs. It would be extremely helpful if the discussion where the item was added to ITN/R (if available) and the most recent ITN/C were linked to for review. Are you volunteering to do the work? It's quite a task. Lastly, we'll need some process for adding new items in the future. --IP98 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I can handle the technical aspect of starting the ten discussions. I thought about doing it by topic, but in the end just clearing the whole list ten at a time seemed like the best idea. I also don't think we need to necessarily link to any prior discussions per se as this is supposed to act as the consensus itself; the existence of prior consensus becomes irrelevant since the idea behind this review is to be the final say. That is, the point is not to decide how any items got on the list the first time, it is just to decide if it belongs on the list, period. If it belongs, we keep it, if it doesn't we remove it, and it isn't necessary in this process to decide how it got there in the first place. The idea for creating some new process for adding or removing items after this review is done can be done in a separate discussion. This is just about building a full ITNR list that has unambiguously been discussed for every item. --Jayron32 18:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. --IP98 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Jayron's comment here seems to contradict what he says above when it comes to items that might have no clear consensus. If there is a presumption in favour of items already on the listt, regardless of how they got there, then this is not "a full ITNR list that has unambiguously been discussed for every item". Kevin McE (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Every item will get discussion to get on the new list; since it will be a new list, if an item does not gain consensus to get on the list, it will not be on the new list. ("it is just to decide if it belongs on the list, period. If it belongs, we keep it, if it doesn't we remove it") That's a different subject than discussing the removal of something from the old list. It's not contradictory. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
That's great, I agree with that, but it contradicts the second sentence of the second bullet point in Jayron's introduction to this thread. If that is now withdrawn, then my #1 below is redundant. Kevin McE (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It would certainly be essential to get a thorough review of ITN/R, if it is to survive. Looking at 10 for a week at a time would be ambitious but good if the pace can be maintained. However, I would counter suggest:

  1. Opinion at the discussion above is evenly split as to whether no consensus means no change: majority against if TRM's 4:49 comment in another thread is taken into account. It would be very contentious to apply the assumption that you propose until there is a clearer resolution, especially as there was in many cases no explicit consensus for addition.
  2. Before we start, there should be agreement as to what constitutes proper grounds for listing at ITN/R. I repeat what I have said higher up the page: there is a distinction to be made between ITN/C style !votes ("I think it's important enough to post because ...") and ITN/R !votes ("I am confident that the community will consider this important enough to post for the foreseeable future because ...")
  3. Within the stated ambition of 10 reviews a week, space should be allowed for timely reviews: for example, it would appear from current ITN/C that the inclusion of BRICS summits cannot be taken as a confident predictor of consensus. It would be good if we had spare capacity to discuss such issues while the iron is hot.
  4. A degree of humility is necessary. If only a few editors are party to these discussions, I do not believe that this review process can claim authority to dictate what can and cannot be discussed at ITN/C. But I throw the floor open as to what we would hold to be sufficient as a quorum, and where ITN/R stands if reviewing it cannot garner enough support to be trustworthy.
  5. The more items that are admitted to ITN/R, the less attention will be paid to the ITN/C exhortation "Please do not oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." Warning to this effect should be part of the review. Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree that we should first tackle the list in the manner Jayron suggested or something similar; the current list should be frozen while that occurs. I think that the proper grounds for inclusion will get agreed to as the first few discussions on the list develop. I also agree that how the items got on the original list in the first place should not be relevant, regardless of how that might have been. 331dot (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Does this proposal need a prior discussion? Would it not be effectively the same thing if someone just started the ball rolling by nominating ten items for removal on this page? I'm not necessarily recommending that, but since part of the idea is not to create any novel processes, then no-one's permission is needed for it to go ahead, AFAICT. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final

It seems odd to single out a single Olympic event like this. The Olympics are covered with blurbs for the opening and closing ceremonies. I could see a case for mentioning the marathon in the closing ceremony blurb (as the medal ceremony is part of the closing ceremony), but no single event should have its own blurb. (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Remove agree with nom, no reason for special treatment. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove yep, no need for a single Olympic event to be treated in this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact is, the premier event of many sports is the Olympic games. I wouldn't take Men's Ice Hockey to be that special, but I'd interpret this that we should be including more content on ITN during Olympics, not less.
During Olympic games we should reserve a sort-of sticky entry in ITN for recent events regarding the Olympics, updating a blurb frequently with quality-updated articles. (e.g. • 2014 Winter Olympics: Eddie the Eagle wins ski jumping gold in the large hill individual classification) I had this thought during the last Olympics. I wasn't going to propose this for a few months, but it would negate this ITN/R entry. LukeSurl t c 21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea. However, at London 2012 there were up to 32 gold medals per day (Vancouver maxed at 7), so there may be some problems to be worked out. (It would certainly be best to test the idea at a Winter Games.) (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: Would the IIHF World Championship be posted in Olympics years if this item were removed? Currently there is a proviso not to post this in Olympic years in lieu of the more prestigious Olympic final. LukeSurl t c 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Haven't the foggiest. Presumably it could pass ITNC under the current regime. If desired, the ITNR entry for the World Championships could exclude Olympic years, if those championships are truly less important than other World Championships. (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I realise it's odd to treat this one sport differently, but it's the top level of international competition in an internationally popular sport. The Olympics are the only time that the world's top players appear for their countries - the IIHF World Championships can only use NHL players if their team didn't make it to the NHL playoffs. Ice hockey is a popular sport in a large (and diverse) set of countries, so the top club (Stanley Cup) and international (Winter Olympics) competitions should be posted. If the ice hockey tournament was held separately to the rest of the Winter Olympics, it would be notable enough for ITNR on its own. So I think its worthy of its own blurb. Modest Genius talk 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The point is that, with very few exceptions, the Olympic Games of either type is the top level international competition for [insert Olympic sport here]. Singling out one event for blurb level notability seems odd, especially when based on importance or notability within the selected sport (as opposed to importance or notablility compared with other Olympic events in the context of the Olympic Games). (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but very few of those sports are sufficiently popular in their own right to merit coverage of their international championships, if they were separate events outside the Olympics. Ice hockey is. Modest Genius talk 13:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Then again, some are. I guess we just disagree on what's the relevant comparison for an Olympic event. LukeSurl's idea might render the point moot, in any case. (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Men's ice hockey final is the top level of international competition, as the World Championships don't necessarily have the best players(as MG pointed out) and are not as widely watched as the Olympic Hockey final. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Agree with 331dot, but also agree that the sticky is enough. It should be noted that blurbs were posted for records in track and field in the 2012 and 2008 games, and also for a medal count record at the 2008 games. Summer games seem to get plenty of extra blurbs, even with the opening, closing and sticky. --IP98 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of interest I checked the nominations for the relevant month in 2012. Two world records where posted as ITNR. World records where subsequently successfully removed from ITNR. Other suggested Olympic blurbs were not posted. This includes the 100 m event, which I believe trumps this for worldwide notability. A cursory glance at the opposes show that it was opposed for roughly the same reason that I oppose this. (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every occurence. Listing at ITN/R would not serve to avoid a quadrennial discussion with an entirely predictable outcome, which is the only reason for listing something at ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • No decision on Wikipedia that I am aware of requires complete or near-complete agreement on an issue. Why should this? With every issue I'm sure one could find someone to oppose it. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. If there is considerable dispute as to the importance of an event, then the assumption that it would be deemed important enough to post every time it occurs is fatally flawed. If we are going to remove from the community the opportunity to establish a consensus in future years, we had better be absolutely certain that our consensus is as solid as it can possibly be.
I know of no other decision on Wikipedia (beyond the 5 pillars, which are not up for discussion) that seeks to invalidate the right for contributors to seek to establish consensus in relation to a proposal. This usurping of consensus is why I oppose the existence of ITN/R, but while it exists, its extraordinary claim to authority requires extraordinary levels of consent. That need not be 100%, but should be sufficiently overwhelming that it makes it clear that further recurrent discussion would lead to a foregone conclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, maybe you're right, I'm not sure, but this isn't a discussion to add it, it is a discussion to remove it, thus it's up to you (well, anyone who opposes this listing) to rally the troops and get consensus to remove it. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion about deletion of ITN/R contains many calls for thorough redrafting and relisting: there was little unqualified support for ITN/R as is. Regardless of the opening position, this is discussion about whether Olympic Ice Hockey should be at ITN/R, and at present the !vote is 4-2 against it. Kevin McE (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not what the discussion is. This is entitled "Removal proposal" not "Whether this should be here or not proposal". I have called for (and continue to support) a thorough review of the list, but none has taken place yet so I have continued to proceed as has been done before. If there is consensus to remove, fine, but that's what is being sought. It's on the list and you need consensus to remove it, not consensus to keep it. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not what the discussion is. This is entitled "Removal proposal" not "Whether this should be here or not proposal". A strange distinction: if there is consensus for it being on the list, it will either be added or retained, and if there is not, it will be removed or remain from it, so any discussion is a "Whether this should be here or not proposal". Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly; it's up to those who support removal to gain the "sufficiently overwhelming" consensus to do so, it's not up to supporters to gain support to keep it. I'm not really sure 4-2 meets the criteria you have laid out for yourself. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I cannot see that not being on a list that overrides the right of the community to discuss consensus demands overwhelming consensus. That is simply illogical, regardless of whether it is addition to or failure to remove from such a list. Granting of extraordinary authority is an extraordinary decision: being treated the same as any other suggestion does not. I am by no means seeking a decision that this should never be on ITN, or that the right to raise it at ITN/C every 4 years be infringed. Kevin McE (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove. Whatever the supposed rationale, it's not appropriate to have a single event singled out for ITNR in the context of the Olympics. Like all the other events that will seem incredibly important to the people who follow a particular sport, this can take its chances at ITNC. Formerip (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No consensus = No action or remove

Normally "no consensus" defaults to "no action". However, in the context of this list I believe that "no consensus" should mean "remove". The main reason is that a lack of consensus on ITNC results in the item not being posted. A lack of consensus to remove cannot logically overrule a later lack of consensus to post, something a clear consensus to keep or add can. An additional point to consider is the lack of discussion for some of the older items on the list. (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Should mean remove, which will not surprise anyone who has seen my other posts here. Inclusion in this list effectively removes the right of contributors to discuss consensus when an item is raised at ITN/C. To prohibit such discussion on the basis of no consensus is thoroughly illogical. I would further move, for the same reason, that consensus for inclusion at ITN/R (whether addition or retention) should be overwhelming. Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Firstly, if some significantly older items are on the list that had little or no discussion, it should be easy to suggest and gain support for their removal. It's being done for a couple of things right now. People can do so at any time.
I furthermore do not see why this page should be treated any differently than other pages. Each discussion should be considered on its merits and consensus obtained. We don't need to change what lack of consensus does here. Consensus can change and presence on the list isn't writing the subject in stone. If consensus changes that much, that can be brought up on this page at any time. Having such a rule just undermines ITNR by tilting the process to those opposed to it in general.
Lastly, I sort of agree that a little more support than 50% plus one or two might be helpful with votes on these items, though I'm not sure when items that barely break for either support or remove have action taken on them now. If they're that close, the relevant topic of discussion shouldn't go through anyway. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"I furthermore do not see why this page should be treated any differently than other pages." This page seeks to do something that no other page on Wikipedia (that I am aware of) does. It claims the authority to override any attempt to establish consensus on a matter at another page, where that other page has a large impact on a page of huge viewership and far wider participation in establishing its content.
For example, it is absolutely crazy that on the basis of the undiscussed addition of an event and an inconclusive review of its status on the list, that people actively involved in the discussion of main page content are gagged.
If it is assumed that consensus can change, then codifying a temporary consensus and using it to suppress discussion of consensus seems illogical. ITN/R rarely attains a high profile: for most items, the fact of their inclusion at ITN/R only comes to wider attention after it has been nominated at ITN/C, and then it is considered bad form to challenge it here. Small tail wagging large dog, in a manner not like any other page. Extraordinary powers require extraordinary level of authority. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Question What is the threshold for consensus? --IP98 (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Question At what interval should the "older items on this list" be re-considered for your version of "consensus"?
  • Question If an "older item" had consensus to add to the list at the time (even through light discussion), should it be re-evaluated regularly so that whomever happens to be participating in the project at that time can re-consider the item? --IP98 (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Question do you realize that an ITN/R item must still pass update quality requirements to post to the main page? --IP98 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose No consensus means exactly that, no consensus to change. Items on ITN/R that had consensus at the time to be added, cannot be removed simply because the current participants in the project cannot agree if the item should remain or not. --IP98 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
False assumption: many items were posted at the beginning of the list with no discussion at all. Kevin McE (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
[citation needed] --IP98 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, please provide discussion links for each and every one of the 34 items added to this version of the ITN/R page which was posted by User:Random89 exclusively in February 2008, many of which we still have today.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
That is formatted as a reply to me: I'm guessing the challenge was intended to be laid before IP98 rather than at my door. Kevin McE (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it was formatted as a reply to the [citation needed] template, (check the colons!). And indeed, it's now up to IP98 to demonstrate where the consensus was reached to add those initial 34 items to ITN/R.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for my miscount. Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course, the contributions made by User:Random89 would have been prevented of WP:ITNR was protected from non-admin editing, and if a closure process was required to move an item from WT:ITNR to WP:ITNR. --IP98 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well that's silly because he/she added those 34 items before ITN/R was even considered a legitimate repository for candidates to be posted without further debate. Now then, onto the evidence, please show us all where these items gained consensus, or else remove your assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
My response was a challenge to Kevin McE to back up the statement many items were posted at the beginning of the list with no discussion at all.. If my misuse of colons and templates has caused confusion, I'm sorry, and would appreciate technical counseling on the correct use of those items. --IP98 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've provided a link to 34 items which had no consensus to be posted. Don't forget, you can't prove a negative, so unless you can prove that these 34 items did have community consensus for inclusion at ITN/R, you'll need to retract your assertion that "items had consensus at the time to be added". Please provide evidence that this assertion is true. You only need to do three or four of those 34, I don't expect the whole lot... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I won't perform tricks for you. Kevin McE has made a claim, and I've asked him to back it up. If you have an objection to the 34 items you've mentioned, feel free to start a new discussion topic on those items. --IP98 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, as I've said, you cannot prove a negative. I (nor Kevin McE) can prove there wasn't a discussion for those items to be added, but you, at the very least, to back up your claim, should be able to do that. So unless you can provide evidence, please remove your blatant lie mistaken assumption. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
There are archives of past ITN/R discussions. You can review them at you're leisure. I've linked to some discussions at recent ITN/C discussions. I have rephrased my remarks to remove the implication that all items had consensus. The statement "please remove your blatant lie" is exceptionally hostile and unpleasant. --IP98 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well clearly it was a lie mistaken assumption because you couldn't provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your fake assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It was an accidental inaccuracy caused by poor choice of words. Simply pointing out that I had given a false impression would have been adequate. Instead, you've twice accused me of being a liar. I do not understand why you've used such hostility. --IP98 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It was not an "accidental inaccuracy", it was an entirely false assertion. Note, I asked you courteously " please provide discussion links for each and every one of the 34 items" and then "please show us all where these items gained consensus, or else remove your assertion" and then " Please provide evidence that this assertion is true". You refused, on each occasion to do so. You had a chance. Or three. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You asked please provide discussion links for each and every one of the 34 items which was totally unreasonable. All you had to say was "you've given the impression that all items had consensus, this is not totally accurate". Instead you immediately adopted a confrontational position, then twice called me a liar, and have continued to insist that my intentions were malevolent. --IP98 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I then suggested just three or four linked discussions would be a good start. You adopted a deliberately erroneous position to start with in order to promote a fallacious belief that everything on ITN/R had a consensus to be there. I asked then asked you to provide evidence of your declared consensus based on a link where 34 items were added (including the recently removed "world record" item). You didn't do that. You need to be more careful when you make false assumptions. Especially when the whole debate is over whether items had/have consensus for inclusion. Your failure to do so entirely undermines much of what you write here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You adopted a deliberately erroneous position to start with in order to promote a fallacious belief that everything on ITN/R had a consensus to be there. Again, that's false. I didn't adopt a deliberately erroneous position. You have no idea who I am, or what my intentions are. At any point you could have explained why you were asking for these links. You didn't. Instead you called me a liar, twice. Then have insisted that it was a deliberate act, twice. I have no idea why you've done these things. --IP98 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This whole debate was about whether items had consensus. You claimed they did. Then you couldn't prove it, worse you refused to prove it. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I accidentally gave the impression that all items on ITN/R had consensus. Rather than point that out, you made unreasonable demands, called me a liar then accused me of malevolence. Why you adopted that path, I have no idea, but it's as simple as that. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Not really, I just asked you to substantiate your outlandish claim. You said you wouldn't "perform tricks". Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it was formatted as a reply to the fact template, (check the colons!). And indeed, it's now up to IP98 to demonstrate where the consensus was reached to add those initial 34 items to ITN/R.... That was your statement. Since I hadn't commented on 34 items (you introduced that), I had no idea what you were talking about. I said I wouldn't perform tricks for you, and you replied please remove your blatant lie. From that point on you proceeded down a path of unrelenting, unrepentant and utterly unnecessary hostility, twice calling me a liar, twice accusing me of deliberately promoting a "fallacious belief", and stating that "worse still" I "refused" to prove a position I hadn't realized I had taken. I have no idea why you behaved in this exceedingly hostile manner. It's been thoroughly unpleasant. --IP98 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I introduced "34" because I actually bothered to do some research, before making basic errors in claims about "consensus". Perhaps next time you'll do some research, before it becomes such an issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Your statement is predicated on the notion that I intentionally attempted to mislead the community. That's a notion which you've repeatedly attempted to promote, despite having precisely zero evidence. I looked at the past discussions, saw a number of items which had consensus. It wasn't my intention to suggest that all items were thoroughly discussed. Instead of pointing out my error, you called me a liar. That's the issue here. You could have diffused this "issue" easily, but instead embarked down a path of sarcasm ("look at the colons!") and hostility ("remove your blatant lie"). That's the real issue here now, a pattern of unremitting hostility. --IP98 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The colon comment was a response to Kevin. The other issues I've already dealt with, I gave you at least three chances to defend your clearly fallacious statement mistaken assumption. You declined or ignored each opportunity. You could have diffused this "issue" by supplying the evidence (or even some of it) to substantiate your claim. The problem here is the unremitting falsehood mistaken assumption. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I corrected the "falsehood" (an honest mistake of word choice, not even of poor research), after I finally understood your objection. Since then you keep throwing about the terms "falsehood" and "lies". That truly is the issue here now. I don't know why you didn't state your objection clearly at the start, instead of demanding evidence to support a claim I hadn't realized I had made. Calling me a liar is totally unacceptable. --IP98 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
My objection was clear, you needed to prove what you said (which was a lie mistaken assumption) and you refused to do so. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It was not a lie. A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. This was not the case. Stop calling me a liar. --IP98 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Well thank you for modifying your comment, I firmly believe that you will not find any discussion for any of those 34 items. I have redacted and replaced with "mistaken assumption" which is perhaps a better representation. That is part of the big problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
During the above discussion, you have edited your comment to change it from "Items on ITN/R are there because the items had consensus at the time to be added, and cannot be removed simply because the current participants in the project cannot agree if the item should remain or not" to "Items on ITN/R that had consensus at the time to be added, cannot be removed ...".
So what is your proposal in regard to those that fall outside your lately introduced qualification? Kevin McE (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well; I didn't really say it outright above. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This usually comes up at Wikipedia in deciding if "no consensus" means no endorsement or no change. I firmly believe that the least controversial way to handle these things is to assume always that "no consensus" should always mean "no changes to the status quo" whatever the status quo was before the issue was put to a !vote. So, if the issue at hand is the removal of an item from ITNR, and there is no consensus, the item should not be removed. If the issue at hand is adding an item to ITNR, and there is not consensus, the item should not be added. --Jayron32 17:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I understand the viewpoint of Jayron; however, considering the purpose of ITN/R, any discussion that doesn't result in consensus for inclusion of a topic should result in the removal of that topic. If consensus cannot be reached remove or retain a topic, it is clear that the topic is controversial enough that it shouldn't be on ITN/R. Ryan Vesey 18:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I brought this up before. ITN/R is supposed to be for items that do not need consensus (apart from updates) to be posted as that has already been decided here. If we can't find consensus here then they should not get this free pass. AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Mostly oppose. It would seem sensible to have a lower threshold of what defines "consensus" here, but I disgree with the absolute nature of the proposal. ITN/R isn't just wholly uncontroversial items, but also having sober discussions about predictable events such that extra weight can be given to some minority items occasionally. For example, Handball is never going to be a major story even when it occurs, but reserving a posting once every two years seems due weight, rather than never posting at all. ITN/R is our mechanism for this. Such minority events are always going to split opinion, but that's where civil disucssions with a common-sense approach to judging consensus come into play. LukeSurl t c 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    So called minority events do not always split opinion and if a case is made about due weight then a strong consensus to include can be found here. I am specifically thinking of Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 4#Removal of World Netball Championships, which had a strong negative reaction at WP:ITN, but received comfortable support here. AIRcorn (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Decommission ITN/R

ITN/R doesn't seem to have a purpose anymore. Establishing consensus for notability on most of these items, and honestly any item that should be on ITN/R, is very quick, with the update generally being the concern anyway. Those items that are controversially notable are still debated at ITN/C, despite the fact that they're on ITN/R. Then there are people who seem to just half-heartedly support items, supporting solely because it's listed at ITN/R and not really feeling it's that notable. This often leaves admins in the awkward position of posting items that are heavily opposed at ITN/C simply because they're at ITN/R. The number of discussions about adding or removing ITN/R items is too large, with the level of consensus here just mirroring that on ITN/C. This suggests a profound misunderstanding of how ITN/R was intended to work and, more importantly, that it is not working at all. So, let's just get rid of it and allow each nomination to be decided individually. -- tariqabjotu 03:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Though it could be argued that this will make it even harder to get blurbs posted at ITN, it is time to take a bold step and give ITN/R a rest. We can always bring it back if ITN freezes up. I was just looking at how many football items there are on ITN/R - really? Let's debate on the merits, and hopefully move forward. My thanks to Tariqabjotu for this suggestion. Jusdafax 04:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and replace it with better guidance on ITN notability: guidelines should recommend prominence in news sources as demonstrated by which news sources cover a topic and how it is covered and in what parts of major news sources and less on what editors individual tastes and preferences are for determining notability for ITN. News coverage and article quality should be determining factors (and article quality should rule all) as to what should and shouldn't get posted. --Jayron32 05:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While there are some valid criticisms I do feel ITNR saves us a lot of discussion. I also feel that that, by and large, the events listed have a consensus gained over time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, I think if we're going to consider such a serious change to ITN we should have a RfC to get the widest possible consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsemlak (talkcontribs) 05:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) .
I have been bold and added the RFC tag to the start of the section. LightGreenApple talk to me 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support With regret, I have come to the view that ITN/R is not fulfilling its purpose and is causing more harm than good. I really don't think it saves much in the way of discussion. As has been observed, uncontroversial items such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup will fly through anyway, and the more controversial items get their notability debated anyway on ITN/C. I do agree, however, that an RfC should probably be held before abolishing ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been bold and added the RFC tag to the start of the section. I would also support a listing on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion but will leave it up to others to so nominate. LightGreenApple talk to me 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Support listing at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)\
 Done AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree that in it's current incarnation it is not working. LightGreenApple talk to me 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Many items are here with no discussion to establish consensus, others added or retained on the basis of marginal !votes that say "I think this is important", not "I am confident that this will be considered important by the community every year for the foreseeable future". Criteria that were accepted several years ago are routinely challenged now at ITN/C. Despite admonition, items are frequently opposed at ITN/C on grounds that they are not listed at ITN/R. The only items that really ought to be here are such obvious passes on importance grounds that they will go through on snow as soon as they are sufficiently updated anyway. Tiny (or no) discussion here should not trump opposition at ITN/C, which attracts far more eyes and more turnover of editors. Kevin McE (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think this is useful without any clearly defined criteria for what should be included. We end up with arguments along the lines of "such and such is included so this should be too", which can lead to some extreme examples. Let nominations live and die at ITN/C. If they truly belong here they should fly through anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support clearly broken as recent events have demonstrated. Allow each topic to be discussed without the spectre of someone claiming "well it's ITN/R, so there"... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That would also alleviate the election/sport concerns. Although perhaps we could establish/consensus/method for adding ALL things again.Lihaas (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support We've been heading towards this for at least a year. ITN/R was missused by certain editors to "race" for a front page nomination, often doing so at the expense of updating the article. In anycase, there's been far too much argument and far too little real discussion. So let's decommission ITN/R for good, as that should be the best foundation on which to build a new, broader system doktorb wordsdeeds 10:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there is an actual proposal to replace or reform this. Call me a newbie still but I don't think this is so seriously broken that it needs to be scrapped ASAP. I think many of the problems can be fixed by clarifying the criteria for inclusion and subjecting listed items to a review, on a regular or requested basis(which there was nothing to stop people from doing so now or in the several years many items have been listed) 331dot (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reform, or remove items with limited consensus for addition. (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'd be quite happy just to get rid of ITN/r entirely--noms that are assumed to have consensus will quickly show consensus at ITNC. That being said, wiping the slate clean and starting over per The Rambling Man below seems reasonable. But we'd have to agree on something like a two-to-one or even greater consensus per item, with actual supported arguments, not just votes counting, and the arguments would have to be archived and linked to the items approved. And we should absolutely not approve blanket categories like "sovereign elections" (apologies to Burkina Faso): with over 200 nations and some parliaments falling yearly or more often ITN would just be an election ticker. This would be a long, complicated, and probably very contentious process--and ITNC disputes would still arise. So I'd still rather just scrap the whole thing and stick with just ITNC nominations. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The elections are currently on WP:ITNR and are posted if they are updated, yet ITN is not an election ticker. In my opinion the quality of the project is improved by posting all sovereign country elections on the main page. If the consensus of the wider project approves "sovereign elections" for a renewed ITNR they should be posted until a new discussion removes them from the list. If the consensus is that elections should always go through ITNC that's fine too, but it will result in some oddities, e.g. because of higher percentage of active Wikipedia users in country A. In any case, I think a wider consensus for a consistent practise is good whether it is all countries or the 50 most populous. (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'd be tempted by the idea of wiping the slate clean and then re-electing each member of ITN/R, from scratch. That would be fine. Trying to dig back in history and finding some dubious "consensus" to automatically include certain articles (like the Struga Poetry Evenings which is both an obscure award and a pathetic article) is pointless, if we want a list of shoe-ins, let's start now by getting true consensus for each article. It's radical, but we probably have no choice unless we discard ITN/R altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the proposed new function below. In any case, as an ITNR consensus is supposed to be considered in subsequent ITNCs, I think it needs to involve more editors than the average ITNC discussion. Perhaps mandatory RFCs for inclusion and exclusion (after eliminating the current set), with a single large RFC (or a few divided by subject) for the first batch. (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: Would there be any difference if we erased the list and just left out:
    • FIFA World Cup Final
    • Opening of the Summer Olympics
    • General elections of countries with 50,000,000 in population (or the top 25 most populous countries)?
  • Those are the shoo-ins, IMO. –HTD 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the first two, but as they are not imminent there is no problem including them in the sports discussion for what to re-enter. The third opens a can of worms (though I propose to open in any case), and the affected countries would probably pass ITNC without problems so it should be discussed.
That is: The list should go as the "shoo-ins" are not imminent and would pass ITNC without problems if they were. I think it is better if all items on the new ITNR go through the same process. (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Update 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Erase the whole list, start again. That's the only way we can fairly create a new list of items that are considered ITN/R across the whole (current) community. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The reasons why ITNR was first set up still exist. It saves a lot of arguing and concentrates minds. The fact that updates are the problem shows the system is working - we don't get into long notability discussions, and editors can go straight to updating the article. There are years of useful experience and institutional memory in the current page. Yes, there are a few items that could do with being removed, and the talk page should either get some more traffic or be redirected to WT:ITN. But that doesn't mean we should scrap it. Modest Genius talk 21:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
So reboot it, allowing each proposed article to be discussed rather than rely on dubious (or non-existent) historic consensus which you claim to include "years of useful experience and institutional memory" (the latter of which is probably a negative, rather than a positive).... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not the proposal under discussion. This RfC is to totally scrap ITNR. Modest Genius talk 22:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Point of Order - This proposal is simple: to decommission the ITN/R list and not replace it. It is a support or oppose vote to scrap the list and debate each ITN nomination on its merits. A refactoring or recreation of the INT/R list will involve a massive debate that will be counter productive. Again: this !vote is about us stopping the use of INT/R. If we run into problems, we can always !vote to bring it back. Jusdafax 21:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure sure, but on a practical level, there's a compromise position which is to re-boot the list, and do it in a consensual way, rather than just for individuals to add/remove items when they see fit. You can have more than a yes/no answer, unless, of course, I missed the rules on this discussion which stated clearly it was a referendum (i.e. Boolean answer) on the existence of ITN/R, as opposed to a discussion to seek out the best solution.... (which is altogether possible). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • "So, let's just get rid of it and allow each nomination to be decided individually." -per the proposal under discussion. The genius of this is the simplicity: we get rid of it and !vote directly on the merits of each ITN nomination as usual at ITN/C, but with out this ITN/R list. Jusdafax 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussing other options does not remove the possibility of this outcome. (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I don't see the problem with suggesting alternatives to the two extremes. (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems rather baby & bathwater to me. ITN/R seems quite useful, one as a list of things we might otherwise forget, and also to save us time discussing that we can then spend on improving articles. I've proposed a reform to ITN/R procedures below that should let the bathwater out while keeping baby safe and warm. LukeSurl t c 21:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but would support a reboot. Tariq's rationale is basically fair enough. ITNR is useless if it is constantly throwing up arguments. However, it's also useful if it increases the frequency of updates and helps to ensure balance of coverage along various dimensions. The problem is that it is built on shaky foundations, since it's contents never had a strong consensus and are at least partly random. That can potentially be fixed, so that ITNR stops being useless and carries on being useful. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I'm not a big fan of ITN/R, but removing it gets rid of certain events that received consensus years ago, but due to the stricter standards of most editors now might not pass. I think we should take into account past consensus and not have to reanalyze an event each time, when most discussion will just be general to the event, and therefore repetitive each year. The purpose of ITN/R is to prevent this, and no matter its flaws, it can still serve this purpose. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Item-by-item discussion is valuable, and ITN/R squelches most possibilities of having this. In addition, the quality of the update that items have is frequently ignored because, having notability established at ITN/R seems sufficient for posting, and there have been several instances in which ITN/R items have gone up before they are ready. Second choice is a major overhaul of items that removes all but the most obvious, notable, and well-publicized events (which could in itself lead to more drama) and use ITN/R for that limited segment of events. SpencerT♦C 07:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose in principle, having a list of predetermined items makes sense as a way to expedite posting for obvious events (of course people always find a way to filibuster Super Bowls for some reason). However, it needs to be easier to remove items from ITNR without having to jump through hoops to do so. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Many good arguments above. ITN needs to have a good look at itself, including its name, its purpose, its processes aand quality control issues. This change will barely begin to address those wholesale issues, but it's a start. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose scrapping, "the update generally being the concern anyway". ... (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, because I think ITNR should continue to exist in some form. I would prefer that we deleted it, agreed the "standards" for adding something to the list, and then recreate a blank page.

    In practise that discussion would have a pretty narrow scope. Obviously any addition would require consensus, and I presume that anything on the new ITNR would be considered postable subject to quality. So essentially we would be discussing the level of discretion admins have to give less weight to overtly nationalistic arguments, when determining whether or not there is consensus for a given item. —WFCFL wishlist 13:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. At least with the recurring events on ITNR, a consensus has been established that these events are worthy of inclusion, and the only dispute at ITNC is, generally, whether the article has been improved sufficiently to post the news report to ITN. We have enough trouble getting the Super Bowl result posted every year -- imagine how things would be if the crowd of people who are negative toward American football could take the opportunity to challenge whether the event is notable at all. There should be a procedure for adding or removing events from ITNR, but the list of eligible recurring events in general should be maintained. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Many of the events at ITN/R carry no demonstrable consensus, they were added without discussion. The issue with the SuperBowl was entirely due to doubts about sufficient updates. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
If there was "no demonstrable consensus", then it should be easy to gain consensus for removing such events from ITNR. My issue was when you unilaterally removed an event that had been unchallenged in five years. I wouldn't have cared if it had been added in the last week or even in the last year, but being on the list for five years unchallenged counts for something. It doesn't even really matter now, since this will either go away or be restarted with a fresh list. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion of my edit a week ago is totally irrelevant here. Metropolitan90 made a !vote supported by an observation that is demonstrably untrue, I pointed that out. Kevin McE (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
An implied consensus to not remove items that, even if added during the creation of ITNR without specific discussion, have survived unchallenged for years is not "totally irrelevant" nor "demonstrably untrue". Metropolitan90 is entitled to their beliefs, just as you are yours and me mine. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Since when has commenting on the reasoning behind a !vote been denying that someone is entitled to his/her beliefs? I thought it was of the essence of debate and discussion.
The matter I dismissed as "totally irrelevant" had nothing to do with M90's opinion: it was to do with your dragging an old specific deletion issue into a discussion of what is true of a large number of items currently listed here.
It is demonstrably untrue that any clear consensus has developed around some of the items listed here. Ignorance is not consent. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I pointed that out to show that what you claim isn't "demonstrably untrue", it's a matter of opinion. You say "ignorance is not consent"; I say that if no one was moved enough to remove the items from the list for lack of consensus in five years, they must support them by not opposing them. It's a simple matter to say "this didn't get consensus and should be removed" and for someone else to agree or disagree, about a long-standing item. It's not a matter of ignorance, it's a matter of a lack of action. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
What I initially pointed out to Met90 is that there was no demonstrable consensus on some items. I really don't see how that can be honestly challenged, but if you wish to, demonstrate it. If nothing happens to make people aware of items being listed at ITN/R, they cannot be expected to oppose their presence there, as they remain ignorant of the fact that they are listed: ignorance is not consent. Kevin McE (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have never said that each and every item had a specific discussion and consensus; I have said that if the opposite is the case with certain items, it should be easy to call for their removal, which should be done by seeking consensus to remove them. It's up to ourselves to make ourselves knowledgeable. ITNR is open and in plain sight, not hidden, with a link on all ITN related pages. Items unchallenged for years is an implied consensus to keep. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
That implicit consensus exists may be your opinion, it is not mine. The statement that I made in response to Met90's rationale is that not every item has a demonstrable consensus, and even if one were to accept your principle of implicit consensus, that does not refute my assertion about demonstrable consensus, nor does it make edits a week ago relevant to this thread. Really can't understand what you thought you were adding to the discussion by weighing in here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We post too few items as it is, and completely scrapping ITNR will only make that worse. I would support reforming the process, but I cannot support getting rid of it entirely. I also would not support scrapping during the process of reforming. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel that ITN/R has a very distinct and useful purpose, that it saves time, and it also ensures that we don't get bogged down in things that should be posted, but you have one or two people that don't like the subject and try to stall everything. As has been noted by others above, ITN already has issues on posting enough sense. Decommissioning this would just make things worse, because it would open it up to the "consensus", which at ITN means everyone disagrees and nothing gets posted. SilverserenC 00:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is going way too far. The correct solution is the reform the listing. I propose we review every item on the list, one by one, and determine a general consensus on keep/remove. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Silverseren and most others. This still has a purpose. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per many above; ITN/R is quite useful. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the argument that we post too few stories as it is. Nothing wrong with a reboot, but decommissioning should be out of the question. (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose ITN/R provides consistency, helps to fill in holes during slow news cycles, and perhaps most importantly of all avoids recurring bickering over the importance of "XYZ sporting event". I don't see ITN/R as broken enough to disband it. Totally absurd. --IP98 (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Not all events get the same degree of coverage every year, and all events should therefore be nominated individually if they are deemed to be includable by an editor. Zaminamina (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support individual nomination and approval. Most of these look pretty obscure to me relative to what usually runs. Neo Poz (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've given my opinion on this before, I think. It represents long-standing consensus and rejects the !voting that seems to be taking hold at ITN. It just saves everybody from a whole lot of needless debates. If an item doesn't meet the update requirements, then it shouldn't go up. That's always been the procedure with ITN/R. Nightw 09:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why not just remove items with limited consensus for inclusion? Seems like a simpler solution. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No posts for a couple of weeks. Can we close? --LukeSurl t c 23:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
!vote count seems to be 21:13 in opposition to the decommissioning, although among the ITN regulars (who will use ITN/R) there is certainly no strong majority in favour of being dictated to by this list. The majority of votes for the retention of the list include some suggestion of a substantive review of the items listed, so this is certainly not a straightforward closure. Kevin McE (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
My understanding was that this discussion was about keeping or decommissioning ITNR only; since outright decommissioning isn't going to take place, any discussion which will undertake a review of the items on the list should occur in a separate discussion, to avoid confusion. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is entirely sensible to have ITN/R. Some items are recurring. ITN/R saves us from having to discuss these items every time and brings some consistency to the kinds of events we post. --RA (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Since this is noted at CENT it is assumed that participation from user unfamiliar with the process is desired. I have been editing since 2007, and as far as I can recall had never heard of ITN/R before beginning to read this conversation, which seems to be mostly comprised of folks already very familiar with it. Any chance of getting a sort of "primer" up at the top on what ITN/R is, how it works, and so forth instead of just assuming we already know all about it? It isn't even linked in the opening statement of the RFC, so this is not very inviting to those unfamiliar with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ITNR is a (somewhat to extensive) list of recurring events that are presumed to have satisfied the notability neccessary to be posted on ITN when the event occurs. The list also has (or has the potential to have) a beneficial effect on avoiding bias and improving consistency. The problem that sparked this debate is the lack of demonstrable consensus on the original inclusion of several of the items. I agree that the introduction could be clearer, but I'll leave that to those more experienced with the ITN processes. (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items is a list of recurring events. The majority fit into three categories, awards, sport and government (i.e. elections and changes of heads of state). It is part of ITN's instructions that a recurring event does not need to be on ITNR to be considered as an ordinary ITN/C nomination. When an item is nominated on WP:ITN/Candidates that is on the ITN/R list the following notice appears:
    Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.
How editors regard this is not universal. WP:ITN generally posts an item once the community have decided the story is sufficiently notable, and that an article update is sufficient. The typical interpretation is that for an ITN/R item, the notability criterion can be considered 'already met'.
Items can be added or removed from the list following discussion on this talk page, however it has been noted that this is a slow and difficult process. In particular is in dispute what degree of consensus is required to remove an item, is it full consensus to remove, simple majority, or should an item need full consensus to remain on the list? It has also been noted that much of the list seems to have been written several years ago, and it is unclear as to what, if any, discussion went into these additions. An alternative school of thought is that because such items have remained on the list for so long they are effectively "grandfathered in" having achieved an implicit consensus by not being removed.
The most dispute ITN/R generates is when editors voice notability-related opposition to an ITN/R item's candidacy. This often happens for elections in small countries or sporting events for minor sports. It is disputed whether these arguments should be considered, or whether the ITN/R listing makes such protests futile.
--LukeSurl t c 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


I came here from WP:AN. A majority of commenters is opposed to decommissioning ITN/R. Therefore, the proposal is rejected. I read the arguments on both sides, but the arguments in favor of the proposal were not strong enough to overcome the numerical minority.

Along the way, The Rambling Man suggested that ITN/R should be redone from scratch, item by item, or at least an effort should be made to review items whose placee on the list is not necessarily appropriate. The format of the discussion above made it impossible to gain consensus on that point. Nevertheless, I think it is a good idea, and I recommend that the regulars here engage in that activity. I will leave the implementation of an ITN/R review to other editors. Chutznik (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

The NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship is an annual, recurring event that I believe should be added to ITN/R. It is the championship game of the highest level of amateur basketball in the United States. Due to eligibility requirements for the NBA, all high school graduates are required to attend college for at least one year, as you can see at NBA high school draftees. There are differences between NBA basketball, FIBA basketball, and college basketball, which make this level of basketball unique, and not merely "below" the professional or international ranks.

The championship game of this tournament has been posted in recent years. It was posted in 2010 and 2011, though not 2012, and the 2013 one just had quite the drawn out discussion, with lots of Europeans voting against it because they don't feel the tournament pertains to them. Opposing it for not being professional is understandable, but I believe misses the point. The term "March Madness" is synonymous with this tournament. People who do not care about college basketball still fill in brackets and watch both first and second round action (really depending on how well they predicted the first set of games to go). Daily page views demonstrate that attention is paid to this event.

Here, I'm going to start quoting others who made stronger arguments than I did.

  • User:Howard the Duck wrote, "It'll be better to say that this is the top level of a "sport of college basketball", or the very least, a variety of basketball. College basketball is different from basketball played in the NBA and the one sanctioned by FIBA. Halves instead of quarters (and with the team penalty), 35-second shot clocks instead of 24, narrower keys, shorter three point line, possession arrow vs. jump ball, no defensive three-second violations. The possession arrow screws up everything in the final minute: players from a team will instigate the other team to do a lane violation with them just to win possession."
  • User:Jayron32 pointed out, regarding its popularity: "Here is the official Nielsen report for 2012 for all sporting events. The NCAA final game between Kansas and Kentucky got 20,869,000 TV viewers, which places it third for any championship game, after the BCS Championship Game (college football) with 26,380,000 viewers and the Super Bowl (at 111,460,000 viewers dwarfs anything else) ... For comparison, the NBA finals (the championship series for professional basketball) averaged 16,855,000 viewers; so based on interest more people in the U.S. care about the NCAA championship than do the NBA championship, by a 5:4 margin."
  • User:ThaddeusB identified the importance of this event in Europe: "For what it is worth, an article from The Guardian: "the largely untold story is that the NCAA tournament is growing in popularity in Europe among basketball and sports fans" "Another reason for the increased popularity is the rise in the number of Europeans playing in the tournament. A total of 41 countries is represented in this edition of March Madness, with 19 European nations having players in the Big Dance." "FIBA Europe, even commissioned a preview of the tournament for its website," " ThaddeusB then identified these additional non-U.S. sources: Guardian (UK), Le Parisien (France), AGI (Italy), RBC (Russia), China Daily, Hearld Sun (Australia), Globo (Brazil), El Tiempo (Columbia), El Mañana (Mexico), CBC (Canada). The only places he couldn't find sources were Africa and India.

This is a high level championship event which draws major news and viewer interest in the US, and in other countries as well. I believe a significant portion of that debate was not constructive, and I hope this is added to ITN/R so that we can merely determine the quality of the article of an ITN-worthy event. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Before commenting on the merits of this suggestion, I would suggest that we begin the process of reviewing the existing ITNR list before adding new items to it. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN/R should include only items for which importance has already been established and can safely be assumed in the future, not as a means of getting contentious issues that have failed at ITN/C through. Kevin McE (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the second half of what Kevin said and because the phrase "largely untold story" doesn't do much to establish the importance of the tournament. Formerip (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have no opinion on whether this event should be included in ITN, but Kevin's above statement is quite correct. ITN/R is intended to reflect clear-cut consensus at ITN/C (thereby saving the trouble of repeating discussions whose outcomes are obvious). It's not a means of circumventing ITN/C and forcing through items whose nominations have failed or might fail. —David Levy 18:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose also per the second half of Kevin's comment. If it didn't pass there, it won't pass here. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kevin. There is no way this could be listed as ITN/R when there is no consensus to post it repeatedly and there is contentious and endless discussion every time it occurs. Some users are apparently not content with the conclusion of the discussion on ITN/C and felt it necessary to advertise the issue here. But unfortunately the whole process on Wikipedia does not work as a judicial system and should not absorb complains from different levels of discussion. That is, the nomination to warrant inclusion of this one as ITN/R is fully immature and should be closed as soon as possible.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice try, but if this couldn't pass on a discussion for the 2013 tournament specifically, it had no hope of making it to ITNR. Resolute 18:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal Kevin and David have already made very good points on this one from a technical point of view and it seems that the nomination should be closed immediately until it evolves into something undesirable as it was the case on ITN/C.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The purpose of this list is to save time on items which will easily pass WP:ITN/C each time they occur. It is not intended as a way to bypass ITN/C when you get a result there that you don't like. Regardless of whether next year gets posted or not, it's not a clear-cut 'always post' case. Modest Genius talk 18:50, 11 April 2013 (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.

Removal proposal: Struga Poetry Evenings

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.

The last two winners (Mongane Wally Serote (2012) and Mateja Matevski (2011)) weren't featured on ITN, nor was Struga Poetry Evenings ever. This is not a genuine ITN/R. I'm not sure how this was added to ITN/R. Seems particularly anomalous when "Struga Poetry Evenings" gets 36k hits on Google while the much "less important" Forward Poetry Prize records nearly 200k. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Remove. If we don't know why it was added, and it isn't getting posted despite being listed, it should be removed from the list. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove. I seem to remember some discussion on ITN/C about this, which was during a discussion of the Poet Laureate. But it clearly isn't getting any attention, and doesn't seem to be of much media or reader interest. Modest Genius talk 21:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Link to original discussion. Oppose as I could only find one hit on when googling the term. (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, let's think this another way. It would seem sensible to have some representation for the culturally important domain of poetry in ITN/R - it'll be quite infrequent that poetry will generate an "unexpected" news item of a non-recurring nature that would result in a regular ITN/C blurb. Question, is this the top award in poetry (across all languages)? Is there another award, or even a collection of awards, that we should include in ITN/R to cover poetry. Looking at List of poetry awards it would seem to me that the Struga evenings have quite a good case for being the premier award for international poetry across all languages. It is certainly the best article for a poetry-only award. (tl;dr -- Keep) --LukeSurl t c 22:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That's fair enough, but where's the "in the news" style coverage we'd expect from winners of this "prestigious" poetry prize? Why didn't the last two winners make it to the main page? What's the point of an ITN/R that hasn't made it to ITN for two years? I'm not even sure this was ever nominated... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Anyone?? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove. Interest seems very low both inside and outside Wikipedia. The article only had around 50 daily hits in August 2012 [1] when the event was last held. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - Very low interest. We generally post the appointment of British poets laureate; what other events might we nominate (at ITNC, not here) to better represent this significant area of human endeavour? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2013 (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.

Proposal: Addition of Tokyo Marathon to World Marathon Majors recurring item

According to the World Marathon Majors, as of 24th February 2013, the Tokyo Marathon has been included as the sixth major world marathon race. Seeing as all the other races are included it stands to reason this one should be as well. See also: 2013 Tokyo Marathon Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 12:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't support or oppose this in principle, but it doesn't look as if it has ever been accepted at ITNC, which is often considered to be a pre-requisite. Why would it not make sense to first nominate the race when it next comes around and see what the response is like? Formerip (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with FormerIP. See if Tokyo's new official status results in any actual enhancement to public/media interest etc. Best to run it past ITN/C next time it happens. Modest Genius talk 17:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the marathons might get a bit of a rough ride when (if?) we get to the ITN/R review: they have I think frequently passed without even being nominated, which must cast doubt on whether the ITN community really believes them to be that important. While we await the review, this is not the best time to be raising new proposals, and as others have said, there should be evidence that the event can pass ITN/C with overwhelming support before it can really be considered here. Kevin McE (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to see this tested at ITN before nominating it here. I'm a little unclear on this but perhaps if the WMM is some sort of tournament with a winner at the end, perhaps we should change the entry to posting simply the winner of the WMM instead of each race. Each race could still be nominated individually if desired. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very limited international interest for a sports event under ITN consideration. Here are peak daily page views for the relevant article (some didn't have a year article) at the latest race of the six World Marathon Majors: Boston: 64126, New York: 27446 (cancelled in 2012 so 2011 is linked), London: 12792, Chicago: 4630, Berlin: 1337, Tokyo: 671. 5 ITN's for marathon is already too much for such a small sport. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose six marathon ITN/Rs?! We have six Nobel Prizes per year, that's ok, we have one architecture prize a year, compared to marathons....?!! Two (two) music ITN/Rs, yet we already have five marathon ITN/Rs and this proposes to add a sixth? Not a chance. As Kevin said above, there's a good chance when we reboot ITN/R that all but a couple of these marathons will survive, and even then only they're lucky. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Remove proposal - Heineken Cup

Withdrawn by nominator - Forget it. Thoroughly derailed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I propose removing the Heineken Cup from ITN/R. Two European rugby cups are on ITN/R, and are contested by the same 6 countries. The Heineken Cup is contested by "provincial and regional" teams. The Six Nations Championship is contested by the national teams. Consensus seems to be that only top level sport is posted. It was in the initial creation of ITN/R [2]. --IP98 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment I have no real issue removing this, but I'd like this to set a precedent that we re-examine all the "original" ITN/R items as it seems this possible argument will arise each and every time an "original" ITN/R item appears, particularly given the pointed comments of some contributors at ITN/C. It would be best we check them all rather than divert discussions on the main ITN/C page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Someone had a suggestion for that, I don't know what came of it. I think you're right that they all need a re-visit, but I would like this item considered on it's own since it's here now. --IP98 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Hopefully you'll be checking every ITN/R that appeared in that first "batch" and procedurally nominating then? Sounds like a magnificent idea to me.
        • I opposed a second tier event at ITN/C and was told that it needed to be removed from ITN/R. I've initiated that process. This is where my interest and motivation begins and ends. I have no interest in a second round of being repeatedly called a liar, and will not be engaging in a systematic review of ITNR. I have no idea how this thread has been turned into a discussion on a systematic review. I have no interest in, or obligation to satisfy your request for "consistency". Regards. --IP98 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - there are four stories per year for rugby union, the world cup, the (formerly known as) tri-nations (which is only between..... four.... four... four countries), Super Rugby (club competition for just three, three countries), Six nations and the Heineken Cup. This is no big deal. Moreover, a club competition between six nations is something akin to all these college level US sports we're continually inundated with, 10s of 1000s of spectators watch this final live, millions watch it on the television. And it provides some good diversity from "soccer" and "baseball" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "All these college level US sports" are routinely opposed as "not top of sport" despite the 10s of 1000s of live spectators and millions on television. The Heineken Cup is regional and provincial teams. How is it a "top level" competition? We already have the national teams from the same six countries posted annually. --IP98 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • It's "in the news". However, having stated your concern with the six nations as well, I suppose you should nominate National Rugby League, Superleague, and Super Rugby tournaments for consistency please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • See above. --IP98 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Insufficient really. If you're looking to make sure ITN hasn't got "second-tier" rugby tournaments, then those above all need to be removed according to your criteria I'm afraid. Heaven help us if someone nominates a college basketball/baseball/hockey/football final ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
            • I've clearly stated my intentions and motivations. I have not stated that I am looking to make sure ITN hasn't got "second-tier" rugby tournaments. My actions are sufficient to achieve my stated goal. --IP98 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
              • So you're happy with the above mentioned tournaments remaining in the ITN/R or do we have go through this tedium each time? I'd like to understand your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I'll second TRM and suggest that we discuss and come to a consensus on a new ITNR list using the current list as a starting point, item by item. Items that don't gain consensus to be on the new list will not be on it. I thought that was the plan from the recent failed discussion to abolish it outright. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'll also support the general idea of a review, but I think we may first need to have a discussion about a discussion, or else there's a risk that it will turn into chaos. Formerip (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a tournament routinely ignored in my native country b/c it generates little, our teams never do well. What I will say is that IP98 is amazing when it comes to setting one set of rules for EU sports and another for American ones...-- (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Clarify please. --IP98 (talk)
  • What a joke - IP98 made a perfectly reasonable request to discuss one item and several editors who know better have decided to make this personal because they don't like him and have ruined any chance of an actually productive discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Well perhaps you should comment on the proposal and get this back on track. All I've done is discuss the issue at hand. As far as I can tell, so has everyone else bar the IP. I suggest you actively participate rather than just get indignant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be in the form of Keep/Remove votes, (with remove being the default result, given the listing is there because of a previously existing strong consensus?) As it stands, we seem to have a debate on the question itself. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it's a community discussion, not a vote. It evolves to improve the Wikipedia and its articles (and those editors who edit said articles' approach). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Low controversy ITN/R items

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.

It has been noted that a community decision on many ITN/R items either never occurred or is unavailable. As a first step to redressing this, I have listed below ITN/R items that I suspect are wholly uncontroversial. Please review this short list and confirm or contest these selections. Hopefully, once this discussion is concluded we will be able to cite it to show community approval for a reasonable proportion of the list, thus lowering the workload for any systematic review:

A list of (hopefully) uncontroversial ITN/R items
International Politics

This list is designed to be extremely conservative. Please don't take an omission from this as any form of slight, it's simply that I could conceive of someone objecting to its listing. There may well be scope for a second tranche that is a little more daring, but I thought this was an OK start. LukeSurl t c 19:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the main reason this activity needs to be conducted is that certain editors have started saying "where was this discussed before it was voted into ITN/R?" Reasonable question. The first ITN/R post is here and demonstrates that around 30 "recurring" items were "added" without consensus. Those items will always draw attention from the aforementioned type of editor, so my opinion would be to, at the very least, deal with those first. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm really not sure about Millennium Prizes. I'm not sure if the technology prizes are well-known enough to be entirely and always uncontroversial as ITNR. The maths prizes are likely always to be ITN-worthy in some sense. But, considering the example of the Poincaré conjecture, I think the fact that this was solved dwarfs in significance the fact that there was a cash prize attached (i.e. our blurb would be "Poincaré conjecture proven", rather than "Man wins prize"). Formerip (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems sensible. I've striken it above. The ITN/R item should probably be reworded to address the issue you raise. LukeSurl t c 20:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Support all. In addition to these, any items added by discussions following the decommisioning discussion could be excluded from (or done at the end of) the review. (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the list as it is currently. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This list. I'd have added maybe one or two more likely uncontroversial ones, but we can do a second list of those, rather than add to a list after voting has begun. Consider mine "support but reserve the right to start a similar vote on a new set of items not listed above". --Jayron32 20:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I would have been less conservative, but that's no reason to object. We can always have a second broad round like Jayron says... Someone should start Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items/draft rewrite (or similar) to add items as they are approved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be most of the really obvious ones. Perhaps after this we can do the rest of the items in the list linked to by TRM, since they were added without demonstrable consensus and therefore there is a particular need for them to be reviewed. Neljack (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support these all seem obvious, which ITNR items should be. I would add the Stanley Cup Finals and four golf majors as well. And to be honest if that were the extent of ITNR, I'd be cool with it. Hot Stop 03:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think we'll probably come up with a second list after this one closes, but it's probably a good idea to not change the list after voting has started... --Jayron32 03:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment suggest dropping the Fields Medal from this list. I don't doubt the prestige of the award, but like the Millennium Prize, I don't know that it's well known enough to be uncontroversial. --IP98 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, I'm fine with this list as a starting point, but it shouldn't be implemented until there are clear guidelines for having an item added or removed later. --IP98 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Including retaining the Fields Medal. I think its primacy is so clear that it should stay in. I'd also support Hot Stop's proposals of the Stanley Cup and the Golf majors. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Also Support retaining the Fields Medal. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Any update here? Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2013 (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.