Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 25

[Keep] Removal proposal: The Boat Race

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.

I see this has already been discussed before, where there were significant numbers of opinions both ways.

  1. It does not represent the top level of rowing. It only involves students from Cambridge and Oxford University, and obviously the world's best rowers need not attend these two universities. That a few of the teams may be top-level athletes does not matter; most of the rowers are not top level. Notably we've done things like oppose addition of the Women's World Chess Championship to ITNR for this reason.
  2. It makes only local news (mostly). You would be hard pressed to find front-page coverage of this in, say, an Argentinian, Sudanese or Japanese newspaper. The implication is that it's not really interesting for most of the world.
  3. Viewership numbers are not particularly high. The number mentioned in the linked previous discussion is 270,000, which is well inferior to e.g. Superbowl viewership of 111.9 million, or for example El Clasico viewership of 400 million. AlphaGo vs. Lee Sedol reached 60 million viewers in Chinese coverage, while English coverage still reached ~100,000 live viewers.
  4. It involves students from only two universities. There are hundreds and thousands of universities in the world, not to mention rowing clubs. Granted only this race garners that much media attention, but leaving out the others hardly seems fair.

I think this event could be nominated at ITNC and possibly even featured, but it should not be ITNR. Looking through the previous discussion I think most arguments one way or another have already been said. I count 14 removes and 7 keeps in the previous discussion, which by pure numbers alone should be around borderline. What is consensus like now? Banedon (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support removal per nom. This is a niche event that involves only two elite schools in England and is not a matter of international significance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As of my count of all bolded votes from the past three discussions I'm aware of, [1], [2] and [3]. As of time of writing the count is 18 opposing to 11 supporting this event's inclusion in ITNR. Therefore, even though there have been previous discussions that finished as "keep", I think this should be discussed again. These editors have supported listing this item in ITNR:
  1. ThaddeusB
  2. The Rambling Man
  3. GoldenRing
  5. 331dot
  6. Bencherlite
  7. Sagittarian Milky Way
  8. Martinevans123
  9. Bzweebl
  10. Dweller
  12. KTC
These editors have opposed listing this item in ITNR:
  1. Espresso Addict
  2. Modest Genius
  3. Calathan
  4. Calidum
  5. Mamyles
  6. Jusdafax
  7. Jeois
  8. Medeis
  9. Masem
  10. Colipon
  11. SnowFire
  12. SeraV
  13. Nergaal
  14. HAdG
  15. FormerIP
  16. Donnie Park
  17. Banedon
  18. Kudzu1
  19. Fuzheado
Banedon (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. I want to address Bandeon's points:
  1. Being the top level of rowing is not entirely the point(though this races gets far more attention than the Rowing World Championships) As stated before, this is a unique cultural phenomenon followed by millions in many places(not just the UK) (the 270,000 figure is live viewers only).
  2. It is not just "local news" and even if it was, that's irrelevant. Very little would be posted if we required "international significance" for what is posted. You could get rid of probably 90% of the ITNR list and a good chunk of ITNC nominations on those grounds. That's why we discourage such objections.
  3. As I already stated, the 270,000 figure is for live viewers. How many events are notable enough so that many people want to gather in one place to see it?
  4. Yes, it does involve only two universities- two of the oldest and most prestigious in the world. The long tradition of this event is notable enough to be followed by millions around the world.
It also seems to be conceded that this would likely pass ITNC. If it does so, and does so every year- then there is no reason not to list it on ITNR; that's the whole point. The objections given still amount to IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal, as I was quite bothered that this got so much play on the front page of Wikipedia, alongside the featured article on Oxford and Cambridge. In almost every other discussion for front page "In the News" candidates, it has focused on trying to provide a balanced world view with a high level of notability. I'm not sure how we got so far away from those values with this entry on a niche, Anglo-elite boat race. It is completely inconsistent with the standard we use for other headlines. As a partial result of highlighting a "light" story like this, the 2016 Brussels bombing story is now off the front page less than a week after it happened, while there are still active manhunts going on. This does speak to a flaw in our ITN system now: should items just fall off the list in chronological order, or should we use our editorial judgment to keep high profile, active stories on the list while less significant, but newer, "moments" be removed first (eg. election results, legal judgments) -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
If you would review the prior discussions on this issue, you might learn why it has been listed here. You are welcome to propose the Brussels attacks for Ongoing if you feel they should remain in some form. It is difficult to please everyone; some feel that we have too much turnover in stories, others feel we don't have enough. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose having this conversation for the 4th time in 2 years, Support's previous closure of this, Oppose Banedon's reopening, Support a 2 year moraorium on having this discussion anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll second that. This is not a vote, but an evaluation of the merits as they relate to guidelines and policy, to seek consensus. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal - I'm still in favor of removal, since I don't think this has enough international interest to be automatically included every year. Many of the points put forward in favor of this being ITNR seem either irrelevant (being an old event has nothing to do with how important it is) or somewhat misrepresented (while a lot of people watch in person, that is because it is free to watch and takes place in a large city, not because it is of more interest to people than other events). Calathan (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
International interest is not required(and the lack thereof discouraged as an ITNC objection); very little would be posted if it was required. I don't know about you but personally I wouldn't fight that large a crowd unless it is something I really wanted to see, even if the event was free. I'd watch it on TV(which millions do as well). This is a highly notable rowing event, more so that the World Championships, and is a unique cultural phenomenon in the UK. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it should never be posted, but that it shouldn't be ITNR. It would be fine to nominate the event each year at ITNC, but I don't think it reaches to the level of worldwide interest where it should automatically be posted. Calathan (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
If this gets nominated and posted every year at ITNC, it should be at ITNR; that's the whole point of ITNR. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
But I don't think it would get posted every year. That's the whole point of asking for it to be removed (I would have thought that was obvious, but I guess not). Calathan (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
But it does get posted every year, because the article is of decent quality, it attracts a decent readership and it is good for the encyclopedia to cover diverse subjects like rowing on the main page. Of course that may not be your bag, but clearly it appeals to our readers who are actually the people that count here, not you, me or anyone screeching for any particular ITNR position. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal While it may be a long-standing collegiate tradition between two schools, ITNR posting of this is problematic: we have no other collegiate sports on ITRN, and the only "rivalry" ITNR otherwise (that I easily see) is The Ashes, which clearly has recognition beyond just as a tradition between England and Australia. ITNC nomination still is possible, but if we're not going to put up things like the NCAA Basketball tourneys as an ITNR (which generate much more audience and the like), then this should not be either. ---MASEM (t) 15:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    It's odd to see the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge described as "schools". If this competition is unique, are you arguing that it's uniqueness bars it from appearing? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, yes, they are universities, but my point is that we are not talking about a professional competition, and we are not talking about a championship competition (after a field of contenders have been narrowed down). I could name a number of near-equivalent rivalries (outside of age) in the US in various football and basketball games (Army vs Navy, UT vs T A&M, Ohio State U vs Univ. of Michigan, etc.) all that draw much larger attention but that aren't anywhere close to being championship or professional level games, and would clearly not include these as ITNR. The Ashes is the only other ITNR that is a rivalry between two teams, and those are both teams at the sport's professional level and between teams representing different countries, so it has a bit more weight to it. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    It dates from a time when professional rowing did not exist? So you're slightly comparing apples with oranges? But yes, I agree, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are not countries. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    I appreciate it is a long-standing, traditional event, predating many of the other championships we have on ITNR, but at the same time, how relevant is the event in terms of the overall sporting world, now that there are professional rowing competitions? --MASEM (t) 16:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    I'm suggesting that some sporting events are important because they are outside the realm of professional competition. I'm sure you know the sort of thing I mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    Except the Olympics garner huge worldwide attention, and are national representatives competing against others of the same from other countries; it's not an exclusive match limited to teams from two very specific nations or the like. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    I wasn't really trying to make a direct comparison there. I'm also surprised that there is not more support from US editors given the ever increasing involvement of Americans at many levels. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    And I don't get the bit about "Argentinian, Sudanese or Japanese newspapers" either. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    That would be Banedon's new criterion that ITN items should be covered in Sudan, Argentina and Japan (ironically the Boat Race was more than "covered" in Japan). The same user cannot read either, the viewership is not 270,000, that's the number of people who watch it live (compare that to your Superbowl, your "Go" games etc), so it's becoming apparent that the initial proposal is based in ignorance (innocent, I'm sure). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal I forgot it happened yesterday otherwise i would've got my knives out. I have always been opposed inclusion as in a nutshell; yes it's a British tradition and so is fox hunting, cheese rolling and Page 3 Girls. Also why should this be in ITN/R and what about the Henley Royal Regatta that has a greater history and greater variety of rowers all over the world. That never appeared in ITN, so why should this. If we were to keep in the basis of "frequently featuring Olympic medalists" (like in past proposal) and major scale sports event in the country, we may as well include Macau Grand Prix in ITN/R as it a hunting ground for future F1 drivers (Senna 1983, Schumacher 1990), people in motorsport and in Asia takes it seriously, it's on TV live every year... As with mainstream news; the general public, all they have is basic knowledge of this boat race like "this boat race between two top universities", they don't care about who won or when it happened. Regardless of BBC Sport (that is not that much in depth), it does not have the widespread mainstream support that other sport has regardless if it's been watched by millions on TV, is it in other countries? Do you see ESPN talking about it? Other than random snippets in British news, when was the last time it was in mainstream news, was it in 2012 when somebody swam in front to deliberately disrupt the race. In a nutshell, support removal to save ITN from becoming a joke. Donnie Park (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    Let's not get over-ambitious with one removal. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC) And a change of sponsor might well make for more interesting coxes.
  • Just a rationale for removal. Donnie Park (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    One without foundation. This year's race was covered by The New York Times and The Japan Times to name just two non-British sources. Pageviews of the article in ITN hit more than anything else in the section other than Radovan Karadžić. Over a quarter of a million people watch it live and millions on television so claiming that "they don't care about who won or when it happened" is naive bordering on fabrication. Why let the truth get in the way of a good rant, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment this is becoming somewhat tedious. The race is watched by hundreds of thousands live, millions on television, has a history dating back to 1829, features Olympic standard rowers, doesn't prevent other stories from being featured at ITN, gains global coverage (from New York to Tokyo to London) and every few months we have to go through this bizarre debate with a group of "I don't like it, it's snobbish and/or irrelevant" opposers versus a group of "this is why it's suitable, with evidence" supporters. There's a worrying trend at ITN that if it's not as big as the Superbowl, it doesn't count. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is pointless and baffling to try and compare the venerable Boat Race with collegiate sports in other countries, because quite frankly this is beyond comparison. This is not the same thing as NCAA college football - nowhere near close. As for the articles themselves, TRM has worked tirelessly and admirably to bring the Boat Race articles up to GA and FA status. They are more than worthy of ITN inclusion.--WaltCip (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for the kind words WaltCip, I guess this won't go away until the anti-brigade get their way. There's a shedload more hatred towards posting this than, say, the result of the Benin election. Which, frankly, is super odd. But no-one is required to be consistent or act rationally I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
WaltCip, while you don't specifically say so, I get the impression that you think the Boat Race is more deserving of inclusion than the NCAA college football championship game. However, I see it the opposite, where the college football championship is the culmination of a whole season involving many hundreds of games between over 100 teams, with millions of viewers in person and many hundreds of millions more on TV, and with nigh-endless news coverage for months on end. If college football (and college basketball, which gets similar amounts of interest and coverage), which are such big things in the United States, often can't even pass at ITNC, why should a single event between just two teams of rowers be ITNR? Perhaps the bar for being ITNR should be set at the level that something which is a big event in one country but not that big elsewhere should be included. However, it certainly seems like the bar isn't there based on the outcome for college football and basketball. If we want to "be consistent and act rationally", then it seems like the Boat Race shouldn't be ITNR (and no, the fact that your country is older than some others and its sporting events have been around for a long time doesn't make them more important than other countries events). Calathan (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the NCAA thing. We have NBA, and other European basketball events. That's enough. Rowing? Hello? Anything? And why not? If we have chess/badminton/gaelic football etc, rowing seems perfectly reasonable. And this event is known the world over, as I've already said even the might New York Times reports on the result of this race. It's big in the UK and big enough outside the UK to warrant a place without this continual jingoistic/anti-jingoistic ranting month-in, month-out continual re-proposing until we're all worn down enough to delist it. Frankly, for the grief this gets, I'm in favour of removing it because the various ignorance and determination of the opposition isn't worth the effort to rebut any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
You have the British Rowing Championships. Why does the Boat Race get primacy over that? Notice, this question is NOT to say it should be removed, but if you can put the context of the popularity and historical importance of events like that into perspective, you should be able to understand the NCAA Tournament. --Jayron32 19:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but arguing to remove this because the NCAA tournament isn't included is pathetic (and is that the same NCAA that was founded a mere 110 years after the Boat Race?). Nominate it for inclusion. You know precisely why the Boat Race is here, you have seen the multiple discussions keeping it at ITNR and yet the vendetta continues to remove it. Baffling, as it's popular with our readers (see the pageviews today and the previous few days for all ITN items freshly posted), and that is the fundamental issue here. With this ITNR we post quality items within minutes of the conclusion of the race and tens of thousands of readers look at it. It drops off ITN in a matter of days. Where is the problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, to me your comments consistently come off as hypocritical. I admit I don't know much about the Boat Race or understand why it is popular in the UK. I get that you don't know much about NCAA football and basketball or understand why they are popular in the US. That makes sense, given that I'm from the US and you're from the UK. However, you seem to think that your ignorance of the NCAA sports is a valid reason to exclude them from ITN, but our ignorance of the Boat Race makes us jingoistic idiots. To me your positions seem absurd. I'm willing to trust you that the Boat Race is a really big thing where you live, so why won't you trust us that NCAA football and basketball are really big things in the US? Or at least the very least, if you aren't willing to trust us that they are big things here, then please stop treating our ignorance as if it somehow makes us idiots while simultaneously treating your ignorance as a valid reason things shouldn't be at ITN. As an aside, I want to mention that I think that there are some real cultural differences at play here in why some of the arguments being made aren't convincing to other people. I keep seeing people pointing out that the Boat Race is old, and that constantly baffles me. When I see that, I keep thinking "why does that matter?" Likewise, being a competition between two elite universities comes off to me as a negative. I think that to an American, saying something is old makes it seem stuffy or non-relevant, and saying something is a competition between two prestigious schools makes it seem preppy and elitist (as an aside to the aside, I keep finding myself writing "schools", but I mean no disrespect in that . . . it is just normal in American English to refer to universities as "schools" or "colleges"). To an American, I think the important things would be how many people care about it in the here and now, and how much of an impact it has on people. It certainly seems to me from the comments posted here that being old and prestigious are important qualities to someone British, and to you the Boat Race being old and between prestigious universities are reasons to care about it. I think to an American, those things really aren't as important, which is why I think your arguments keep failing to persuade some of us. In particular, saying that something is a competition between two specific universities goes against the everyman appeal that I think people in the US want, and makes us wonder why anyone not at those universities would care. I just wanted to point out that I think these cultural differences exist, and I think that may be a good part of the reason why people (e.g., The Rambling Man) keep making arguments that seem baffling to me, yet they seem equally baffled at why we aren't convinced by those arguements. Calathan (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
And your comments come off as ignorant and prejudiced. But whatever. This is becoming US Wikipedia, as evidenced more and more by the rejection of anything non-American. I give up, frankly. I will continue to generate content that the readers want to (and actually do) read, and I will continue to hope that some of us will fight to see it on the main page amongst college basketball and other such detritus. I will continue to hope that once some of you realise this is English language Wikipedia' and not American Wikipedia we can actually create content which looks outside the extremities of the US. That Americans are "baffled" by contests that are nearly two centuries old is of no surprise to me at all. In fact, I quite enjoy the fact that there remains an ignorance that is so obvious and well-publicised outside of the country that we're all sitting here wondering if any of you even have passports, or know what to do with them. Enough of my vitriol, this is pointless, you and your compatriots will get your way and we'll end up with American Wikipedia in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It is pointless and baffling to try and compare the venerable Boat Race with collegiate sports in other countries, because quite frankly this is beyond comparison. - Because you say so? Uhh, okay. This is not the same thing as NCAA college football - nowhere near close. - Obviously not. But I also fail to see what you aim to achieve by comparing apples and oranges, or how this stands as a defence of this entry. As for the articles themselves, TRM has worked tirelessly and admirably to bring the Boat Race articles up to GA and FA status. They are more than worthy of ITN inclusion. - I wasn't aware of the ITN criteria that says "single editor tirelesly working on a pet topic = ITNR. Could you direct me to that portion of the guideline, Walt?
    I think there are arguments to keep it - I was surprised to see Sportsnet in Canada covered it. On tape delay, I believe. First time I've seen it thus. At the same time, the arguments about this being a singular school rivalry is compelling. I suspect many of the people arguing in support of this would oppose an ITNR for a major NCAA sports rivalry game. The inclusion of this entry is obviously controversial, so it should surprise nobody that controversy follows each year. Resolute 19:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    It's not every year, it's twice a year. There's a vendetta to get this removed. I think what Walt was referring to when it came to the articles themselves was that I have managed to keep them up to scratch so their posting is a formality. As an aside, we get multiple complaints about the staleness of items at ITN, reducing ITNR in number will of course increase the staleness. But that really is an aside. I've also noticed that this year's race article got more hits on its day one of posting than anything other than the Bosnian war criminal. So perhaps it is interesting to our readers who, after all, we are here to serve. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    Take a look at the last time the NCAA basketball was proposed for ITNR (understanding that the last few times that the tourney results were posed at ITNC they were rejected as an individual ITN posting). Look at the vitriol in the statements there, and then compare to what's happening here. The same arguments being used to not promote the NCAA are being used to retain the Boat Race. We should be consistent here. The Boat Race draws millions across the world, great. The NCAA basketball tourney draws millions across the world if not more, and its well noted that it actually costs between $100 million to $1-4 billion in lost productivity due to March Madness, it is that popular. It has every equal right to be an ITNR as the Boat Race, excluding its age, which doesn't seem like a thing to discriminate on if we're talking "things our readers are interested in". If the NCAA basketball tourney shouldn't be an ITNR than neither should the Boat Race. If on the other hand we're worried about low volumes of ITN posts, then we should include both. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    So, for a change, do something productive and propose to include NCAA again. Removing this from spite "just because the NCAA isn't included" is playground. The article draws tens of thousands of people to a "niche" sport, it has a quality article, it has history, it is reported on worldwide. Do you think NCAA is reported on by the BBC for instance? So you really need to step up and do something positive, rather than all gather together like harpies and reduce the quality on the main page, after all that's what this proposal is actually seeking to achieve. P.S. The inclusion of The Boat Race at ITNR was to avoid continual discussions about its notability. So far, we've discussed this four times in two years, which is twice as frequently as the race itself. Absolutely pathetic waste of time and energy. Our dear readers seem more than content to see The Boat Race on the main page, it's just the hysterical former colonials and the anti-establishmentists who seem determined to keep beating the drum, shooting the horse etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    No one arguing removal is making this about the Boat Race being a UK tradition or its national ties. It's simply comparing a college sport to another college sport, and college sports have generally being denied inclusion on ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am opposed to ITNR more generally - but, assuming that ITNR must stay a part of ITN, then I oppose "The Boat Race" specifically. In my view this is a classic and glaring case of systemic bias, and that, if taken off the main page or judged on a case by case basis, would be of no detriment of the fans of the event but a huge step forward to demonstrating that ITNR sporting is not a place of arbitrary standards. There are some valid arguments for and against keeping this on ITNR, but I am not sure the Boat Race received proper discussion when it was first inserted into the plethora of ITNR sporting activities, making it extremely difficult to remove now simply as a matter of bureaucratic procedure. I would similarly support any proposition to remove any Gaelic sports, Australian football, and Canadian football from ITNR. Colipon+(Talk) 20:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    It's bizarre. Should we remove ITNR altogether? It seems that from your comment that there's little purpose in ensuring that niche sports events which are significant and need coverage be posted. We might as well axe ITNR. I have no issue with that. But you need to be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    P.S. I am not sure the Boat Race received proper discussion when it was first inserted into the plethora of ITNR sporting activities, making it extremely difficult to remove now simply as a matter of bureaucratic procedure not at all - please read carefully the archives were it was added to ITNR and the various attempts to remove it. It's nothing to do with bureaucracy, nor improper discussion. I think your assumptions of bad faith on behalf of the community are ill-founded and insulting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    It was added sometime after 2009 without discussion that I can find, only retained based on a 2014 discussion. I note that the 2009 discussion to add it also included added the various NCAA tourneys as well as equivalent ones in Europe. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal and the perennial discussion - There's obviously some who wants it removed, but do we really need to have this discussion all the bloody time. -- KTC (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Original and second closing statement by User: This has been discussed multiple times over the past two years, including here, here and here. A careful assessment concluded it should be added to ITNR, followed by a review, which concluded there are slightly more and better arguments for keep ... and lack of consensus to change would favor status quo, anyway. Repeating the same discussion here when the situation has not changed is a waste of everyone's time. (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: This close was unilaterally reopened by the nominator, who made absolutely no attempt either to contact me or request a review elsewhere. The subsequent comments show nothing but a rehashing of the previous discussions. I suggest the nominator stop continuing this unless he or she can provide new evidence that has not already been taken into account. We cannot be creating RFCs every time we find ourselves on the losing side of an existing and recently assessed consensus. (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I reopened the discussion, I find the closing and re-closing by the same user inappropriate, also per comments at WP:ANI. No opinion regarding removal from my side. --Tone 07:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    • As a side note, this discussion is really repetitive but it would be better if some uninvolved closes it. --Tone 07:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
      • As I wrote in the ANI discussion I think there's not much need for further discussion because, after all, most arguments on both sides have already been given. Semantics can be argued ad infinitum, but the core arguments are already there. What's left is a judgment call. I think it's best if an experienced, uninvolved editor assess the consensus in both this discussion and the previous three discussions if necessary, and make a decision on whether this item should be included in ITNR. If the decision is to keep the item, said editor should also decide if there should be a moratorium on further discussion for a set period of time, lest this discussion happen again next year. Banedon (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • What an astonishing and baffling waste of time this is turning out to be. And you know why? Because even if Banedon succeeds on his crusade here, we'll have this very same protracted and nasty conversation next Easter. The whole point of the listing on ITNR which has repeatedly been found to have argued consensus, is to avoid that. So, make haste and get this closed, so we can start it all over again in a year's time. And then we can carry on improving other articles instead of prolonging this vacuous debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per long-standing consensus. The OP's motion to remove is based on several false premises, AFAICT, such as viewership numbers in the hundreds of thousands (false), lack of international coverage (false) and a misunderstanding of the level of competition this event represents. GoldenRing (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal I lack my own knowledge in this area, so I do have to defer to those who are in the know, and they seem to indicate this does have important cultural implications. Also, I can't imagine refusing to post this given sufficient article quality, as it has been posted almost every year for several years. --Jayron32 11:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal (just to be sure, since we're now all about vote counting) nothing has changed, the item has been posted regularly and (although I say so myself) always of a decent quality. Pageviews show that this event is of interest to our readers, even if some of our editors think they know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2016 (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.

[Added] Proposal : Add Turing Award

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.

This would be under a new "Technology" or "Science" banner under awards, but the Turing Award (given once per year) is equated to the Nobel Prize in the field of computer science + technology. The award appears to be regularly covered by mainstream sources (this year has NYTimes, and a spot check of past years shows NYTimes, CBS News, WSJ, etc. all reporting on it). As with other awards, it's the person(s) that get the award that would be highlighted in the ITN blurb. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support because of course before posting it has be up to quality standards, and the award is internationally recognised. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Internationally recognized as the top award in its field. Seems to get notable coverage, meaning readers will be interested. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the often used moniker "Nobel Prize of computer science" is not an exaggeration. Thue (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm surprising myself here but I really am reluctant about this. Yes, I'm more than aware of the prize but I should be as a CS graduate, and yes, I have seen the "equivalent of the Nobel prize" description myself. However, I've also seen it for plenty of other awards. In all cases it is simply used as shorthand for the top award in the respective field. There are no true equivalents to the Nobels in terms of the sheer amount of interest and publicity they generate. Are we going to post all the imposters?
My second point would be the subject matter itself: a lot of the time it is pretty dry stuff. That goes for the Nobels as well of course, but in that case there is bona fide interest in the results. Is that true here? It is not our job to tell people what they should be interested based on lofty ideals of worthiness, but to direct the reader to articles of interest. I don't see this one getting across that barrier in the general case. On occasion such as this year, yes, it may happen. That doesn't mean it should go up each and every year regardless of the recipient or reason for the award. Hence, consider it at ITN/C on a case by case basis. If it gets a track record of going up then it can be reconsidered.
Finally, I have a wider concern about our ability to assess the significance of hi-tech stories in general and computing in particular. For example, although I was fairly new to Wikipedia when the story on 3D gates went up (discussion here[4]) and certainly hadn't made it to ITN/C it struck me as a strange story to go up. Looking at that discussion the consensus was that it was some once-in-a-generation game changer, only one voice was saying it was just one in a long sequence of developments, and even he or she supported the re-nomination. With five year's hindsight to be honest who the hell cares? It hasn't transformed the industry overnight. You'd have to say that lone opponent called it right. Yes, that is but one example but I think it makes the point well: we're all sat in front of computers, many of us will have particular interest in them. We shouldn't allow that interest to create a false sense of importance towards the sector. 3142 (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A way to look at this is that presently, there is nothing in ITNR that reflects on computer science, unless it is given out as part of other awards. Its a very valid and academic area of study and one that compared to many Nobel award efforts, come to realization in daily life much faster. So the addition of one "guaranteed" news story a year about a recognized milestone of computer science is far from overwhelming the other ITNR or ITNC in any situation. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
So there's nothing on ITNR about computer science. So what? No field of endeavour has some automatic right to feature on ITN, yet alone ITNR, there is no quota of stories a given field has a right to expect. Are you proposing that we post "Plumber of the Year" or other industry titles? Wheres the line? ITNR is to highlight stories of general interest and it hasn't been demonstrated here - I'm not talking about stub articles in the specialist sections of the odd newspaper website - where is the coverage in the main running order of mainstream broadcast news? The Nobels can show that. The Turing award can't. 3142 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
A Google News search on Turing Award shows at least 2000 hits from this award given last week, including all major mainstream sources (NYTimes, LATimes, WaPost, and other world papers). So this did get mainstream coverage. That itself is sorta key here , in that while it might not get as detailed coverage as the Nobel's , it is clearly on the same order as those. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support considering that IT is such an important field these days, I think it should be ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    Once is enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2016 (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.

[Closed] Proposal: Add Women's World Chess Championship

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.

We have the male version at ITNR, but not this one. Getting strong support and some surprise that isn't treated equally with the male variant. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - but let's widen this. If a Mens (sport) tournament is ITN/R, then the equivelent Women's (sport) tournament should be too. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Mjroots I think you need to make this a separate proposal - this discussion is for this nomination only. MurielMary (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Count me among those expressing surprise that this is not given equal treatment. I recognize that it does not get equal coverage as the men's tournament, but that can't justify overt bias on our part, especially when it's applied to recurring items. Therefore, I also agree with the sentiment expressed by Mjroots above (as a practical guideline, if not a hard rule). - OldManNeptune 12:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know if this should be included or not, but it's only bias if the women's tournament gets coverage equal to that of the men's and is still not posted. For example, the fact that we post the Super Bowl does not mean we should post the championship game of one of the many women's football leagues there is, because those get barely any coverage. There may be reasons to post this but it shouldn't be to right the wrong of it not getting the same attention as the men's tournament. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that it is about righting wrongs, but about ensuring that the rules aren't stacked against neutrality. ITN/R unavoidably introduces a kind of "bias" by favoring an item with expedited posting (it need only meet quality/update guidelines, debate over notability is moot), so it behooves us to ensure that no systemic bias is allowed to fold itself into this. We post general elections regardless of the country's population, because that's the only neutral way to do it; I view this as an application of the same underlying principle. Your observations are fair enough for regular nominations, because it can easily be debated on the spot whether coverage for this or that is sufficient, or whatever other criteria needs brought up, but ITN/R items should be "gold standard". Regarding women in American football - the issue I see is that no women's football league is an equivalent level of competition to the NFL, and I don't think we post any other US football championships. If there were a Women's Super Bowl of the WNFL, I would say we should absolutely post it even if it got a fraction of the viewers. - OldManNeptune 13:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, the case of Super Bowl is rather evident, as men are simply physically stronger on average than women. In chess, chances are more even, but the fact is most women still decide to play in a separate women's championship, unlike Judit Polgár who challenged men (as the World Chess Championship is open to women). This speaks for inclusion of the Women's Championship. Maybe someday the WWCC will be abolished and women will compete among men, but not yet, not yet. Brandmeistertalk 13:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The proposal proceeds from a false premise: there is no "men's" title - the main competition is open to both genders. Women don't feature not because they are not eligible on grounds of gender, but because they are not good enough to qualify. If the women's game is thus so demonstrably inferior in what way can the the women's title be considered equivalent to the open one? 3142 (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
ITNR includes several separate women championships in sports with insurmountable male performance, such as association football, tennis or volleyball. Unlike those, various women chess players do compete against men and several of them defeated male GMs multiple times. Some women chess players also produced chess novelties (new moves never made before). So gender-based performance difference in this case doesn't look like a big deal. Brandmeistertalk 20:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose currently the top female is ranked at number 73 in the world. Unlike in physical competitions like say athletics, I don't see a good rationale to have a separate entry featuring only female competitors. Nergaal (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support based on the criteria for ITN and ITN/R - which are the only criteria which should be being consulted in this discussion, by the way. All comments above comparing this event to other events are red herrings; the content and composition and popularity of other similar events, or other events within the same sport, are not relevant to the value of this event. According to ITN's significance criteria, the matters to consider here are the frequency and quality of news reports on the event, for example. It's apparent from the coverage of the 2016 event that there is a range of news reports, and they are in-depth. Therefore the event can be considered as meeting the criteria and able to be added to the ITN/R list. MurielMary (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, hasn't received the attention necessary for inclusion. In general, some sports get quasi-equal attention for men and women (tennis, swimming, athletics, judo, most winter sports...), some sports are competed together (equestrian), and in some sports the attention for the men's (or open) competetion is much greater than for the women. Of those, we have on the one hand things like soccer, where the attention for the women's world championship is considerably smaller than for the men's, but is still more than sufficient for ITN inclusion. On the other hand, there are things like chess, but also e.g. snooker, boxing, ski jumping, where the specific women's compettion gets little to no attention compared to the men's (or open) competition. If someone starts a women F1 racing championship tomorrow, it shouldn't automatically get equal treatment at ITN with the existing (open but in reality men only) competition, unless it gets sufficient attention. ITN (or wikipedia) is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Fram (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the same criteria cited by the users above. There simply is no evidence for broad coverage of the event. Search on Google News and all you find is some very limited coverage in China and Ukraine (where the two competitors come from) and barely two or three other articles outside chess-specialized websites. One of them, by the Guardian, covered the tournament under the heading "Hunt for challenger to Magnus Carlsen has begun at Moscow candidates", as a secondary item, subordinate to qualification for the open championship game. Compare that to (completely justified) ITN/R event of FIFA Women's World Cup, which has much less coverage than the men's tournament, but is reported in practically every publication that covers general sports. It's not about equal rights, it's about coverage. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Right now the WWCC is structured as knockout tournament, match, knockout tournament, match, etc. The result of the knockout tournament version, which only includes two games at classical time controls, is that it introduces variability. The WCC experimented with that for a while as well and it was quickly overturned for that reason (players like Ruslan Ponomariov won the tournament and with no disrespect to him, he was never at or near the top of the world's rating lists). However the WWCC maintains the tournament version, in part because of the difficulty in finding sponsors for the tournament if it didn't also award the title of world champion [5]. As long as that is the case, the odds are that we'll be seeing new women's world champions every two years, a situation that's silly as can be seen from the list of women's world champions. Yifan has never lost a WWCC match, yet half the time in the past six years she was not champion. Oppose making this ITNR until the structure changes. Banedon (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2016 (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.

[Added] Proposal: Include women's events when simultaneous with men's (and vice versa)

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.

Above, people suggested making the presence of a men's sport event automatically qualify the female event too. This, it was argued, would put undue weight on some obscure events - especially because in some cases, the women's events are amateur while the men's are professional, or the women's events are orders of magnitude smaller. Therefore, I'm suggesting a tighter proposal: when a men's event and women's event are held as part of the same competition, both qualify. This is already an explicit rule for tennis and badminton, and it seems to be de facto practice for marathons; in addition, we would now post the women's Boat Race, both men's and ladies' overall at the FIS Alpine Ski World Cup, and both the men's and women's road races at UCI Road World Championships. This only applies where there is an explicitly gendered award, of course - we wouldn't post the most successful male and female drivers in a Formula 1 race, for instance, because the award is only "best driver". Smurrayinchester 11:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I think we already do this in most cases where the two competitions are part of the same event(including with The Boat Race this year now that the races are on the same day in the same location, despite concerns that the notability of both is not equivalent). I'm not sure we need to write it down but I don't oppose doing so. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm also not opposed so long as the article quality of both articles is sufficient for the main page. --Jayron32 12:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this works out pretty well, especially with the specification that it has to be during the same competition. The Boat Race is, as mentioned, would be a prime example as it shows such events can be worked into the blurb pretty easily. From what I'm gathering this affects a relatively small pool of articles so it shouldn't be terribly invasive. I also think having this written down within the rules somewhere will help solidify this and avoid most complaints (but probably not all) about notability issues. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Not opposed to this. As pointed out, it will draw attention to articles that otherwise would not receive such attention due to systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • What everyone else has said for a few extra words, while keeping in mind the quality argument made by Jayron, this can make a nice difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In principle this is a fine idea, but is there a way to feature it without having a blurb that is implying the two events are of the same caliber (i.e. when the prize pool is different)? While systematic bias exists, I think overcompensating does the same thing in the opposite direction. Nergaal (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I guess using some kind of guideline like this one, I think equal prize pool championships should be both featured, but there should be some sort of tiering for the non-"equal" sports. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how useful that is. The ones where the prize money differs are almost all separate tournaments. The exception is the Red Bull Cliff Diving World Series, which isn't ITN/R, but if it was, I think posting the men's and women's results would still be justified (in the 2016 one, men and women mostly compete in the same events, but the men's season has a few more dives and a couple of men-only events at the start of the season). Smurrayinchester 08:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the original idea is fine (emphasizing Jayron's caveat), no need to compare prize pools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of the above comments. It takes minimal space and effort to include and would match the style of several other events. Regarding the above concern from Nergaal, may I say that I think perhaps we should begin moving past the idea that posting something to ITN implies a value judgement or "worthiness" of a news item. - OldManNeptune 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that as long as the events are near simultaneous, both men's and women's sides should be documented as ITN --MASEM (t) 15:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with original proposal with the usual caveats on articles quality. -- KTC (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Ok, it's clear that we are happy with the idea proposed above. But it needs to be enshrined in words that we can point at to help our admins and other editors when making decisions on blurbs and what to post hereinafter. As the proposer, I'd like to invite Smurrayinchester to propose some words we can add to the ITN instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Easiest would be to change the current text to "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (where applicable) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified." Smurrayinchester 08:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been about a week, so I've added this text (with "where applicable" changed to "when simultaneous" for clarity") - if anyone has any changes to the wording, feel free to revert and discuss here. Smurrayinchester 12:26, 4 April 2016 (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.

[Added] Proposal: Add NCAA basketball championship

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 arguments for having this item on ITNR are very similar to that for having The Boat Race on ITNR. Both are events involving only students of certain universities. Both are high (albeit not top) level competitions. Both attract mass media coverage. Both have national cultural significance. We discussed The Boat Race just a couple of sections above this one, and since that discussion resulted The Boat Race remaining on ITNR I don't see why this should not be on ITNR as well.

Previous discussions on this graciously linked by Muboshgu on the ITNC nomination: [6] [7] [8] [9]

For the record I am on a personal level opposed to both items being on ITNR; however since consensus was for The Boat Race to remain on ITNR then I believe for consistency the NCAA basketball championship should also be on ITNR. Banedon (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we should focus on the active nom at ITN/C before this. But I wholeheartedly support this being added to ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It would be better to wait until after this year's dust settles - a productive discussion will be easier when there isn't a current item on the line. Do you me is we close this for now, @Banedon:? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Re-opening this, as the ITN/C nomination is now complete. Support adding this to ITN/R based on the consensus formed in ITN/C, and that this has been posted now for three years running.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Support per rational of Boat Race to avoid systematic bias and to highlight stories that do see appropriate updates and readership views. Should we assume the women's NCAA title is also included on this per recent discussion on these type of events? --MASEM (t) 15:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The women's tournament is not in the same location(or locations) as the men's so they are different events(unlike the Boat Race). 331dot (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
TRM has it right. --Jayron32 16:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mu (negative) as I think the focus on ITN/R distracts from what should be out primary mission, which is to assess and recognize quality content. I think we already expend far too much energy trying to tell the world what it should find important, instead of assessing the quality of, improving the quality of, and recognizing the good work given to, the articles people are proposing we post to the main page. If I had my druthers, I'd reverse-abolish ITN/R in the sense that I think we could just make ITN/R concepts apply to ALL proposed candidates, and then we could spend less time hand-wringing over whether or not some subject is "important enough" (which always degrades to "important enough to me") and instead focus on assessing and improving articles. If an event happened recently, and we can find enough recent text about the recent event to qualify as reliable sources to improve Wikipedia articles, it should pass the necessary threshold for being "in the news". Everything else regarding if something is important enough becomes irrelevant. But alas, that is but a dream, that people here cared more about improving Wikipedia content than telling other people their work doesn't matter to them... If we're going to keep ITN/R, I'd certainly support adding this. But I think ITN/R and the focus on us granting "worth" to the work of others based on our own personal feelings is a distraction from what should be our main job. --Jayron32 15:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand your caring about quality, but I think you're opposition is misplaced since even ITN/R items are checked thoroughly for quality before they're posted. And some ITN/R items don't go up because they aren't of sufficient quality. I think this proposal is important as it gets us past the "notability" argument and straight to checking it for quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The point of ITNR is not necessary to describe what we as WP feel is important, but instead to identify recurring events that - either due to past nominations on ITNC or consensus of common sense, should easily be promoted as candidates as to avoid discussions on the importance of this recurring event at ITN/C. (The last Boat Race nom at ITN/C (not the discussion above) is an example of what should not be happening). Everyone should walking into an ITN/C discussion on an ITNR item that the recurring events's importance should not be the subject of debate: only the quality of the article for the specific instance event, and at exceptional times, if the specific instance of the event is really that important given everything else going on. (For example, the election results of a nation with less than a million people where the incumbent candidates remain in their seat of power, when there are 5-6 blurbs about significant disasters or the like, despite election results being ITNR, may not be really that important at that time - it doesn't invalidate the ITNR, just that specific case). So nearly all the time, ITNR is aimed to making sure quality content is at the target articles before the ITN element is posted, and should avoid excessive debate on the general importances of the event save for rare cases. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This discussion should have its own forum, and not railroad the discussion over the NCAA game's inclusion into the existing ITNR system. If you boys and girls want to create some walls of text about the general philosophy of ITNR and article quality, create a new thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Summarizing my TLDR response in the above hat: Support. If you want to know why, open the hat. --Jayron32 16:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, for the same reason I backed it on the main ITN/C page a few days ago: this is one of the highest levels of the sport, and of great cultural significance. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It's gone up for the last three years, as it should for an event of its magnitude. The annual argument over collegiate sports in the US is a blight on ITN and quashing that argument permanently by making this recurring would be a relief. - OldManNeptune 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support frankly I'm sick and tired of the comparison between the Boat Race and this event, there are a few parallels but nothing that really means if you post one, you must post the other. It's becoming far too time-consuming and non-profitable to have read the swaths of text from the angry Americans who don't "get" the Boat Race and the non-Americans who don't "get" the NCAA (or other college sports in the US). If the article is decent, and it is (and has been, much like the Boat Race) and if it's popular with our readers (although the final page doesn't get many hits, the overall tournament seems to get a few), and it's been posted for the past few years, then so be it. My parting shot is that don't forget we only have one rowing ITNR, this NCAA tournament will become the fourth basketball ITNR. For the sake of stories hitting the main page for a few days, perhaps we all need to be a little more circumspect, and less jingoistic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - As I understand it, "college" (US) = "university" (UK). That the event has been posted three years running shows there is consensus for it to appear, so let's formalize the situation and add it to ITN/R. If article quality threshold is not met, then it won't get listed. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Posted three years in a row indicates this consistently merits posting; the arguments for posting don't need to be restated. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support - the time for NCAA basketball to be listed on ITN/R has come:
  1. Basketball has a strong claim on being the world's second most popular sport, behind only (association) football. There are professional leagues throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, and of course North America. It has the most national organization of an Olympic team sport, narrowly eclipsing even football. (It is a minor sport in the UK, but the UK is the exception here.) See also statistical analysis that agrees with this conclusion.
  2. ITN/R currently lists 2.5 basketball items/year, compared to, for example, 4+ for rugby, which no one would argue is more popular. So, there is room for another item.
  3. More importantly, than the sport's popularity, the cultural impact of NCAA basketball goes well beyond the sport itself. In honesty, most sports' finals are followed only by fans of the sport. That is not true of NCAA basketball, which is finds significant interest from people who normally don't follow basketball or even sports in general. The only other events in the US which definitely do that in significant numbers are the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby, and the Olympics, which are all listed on ITN/R, of course.
  4. The NCAA tournament is typically the third most watched sporting event in the US, ahead of ~10 events that are listed on ITN/R. We shouldn't be putting our judgment of "importance" ahead of the public's judgement.
  5. And perhaps most important of all, the tournament has been listed 5/7 years. Most recently, it has been listed with fairly strong consensus. It is very likely to be listed almost every year going forward, regardless of ITN/R status. There are those that really hate that fact and will raise a huge stink about it, wasting editor time arguing. The purpose of ITN/R is to avoid such unnecessary arguments from reoccurring every year.
--ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose My observation is that in the grand scheme of sports NCAA championship is an obscure thing, despite claimed viewership and following in the US. Presently, ITNR lists three basketball events, all of them of international significance, while winning NCAA championship confers only local notability upon a basketball player. I doubt that a non-US reader would recognize such competition as easily as all other basketball events at ITNR. Other than that, I doubt that in terms of physical performance college basketball approaches the level of play at, say, FIBA Basketball World Cup. Even if I end up in minority here, the good thing is that we would avoid repeated skirmishes at ITN about posting it. Brandmeistertalk 15:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It requires a certain level of self-serving hypocrisy to argue that one country's college event deserves ITNR but not another's. That said, I oppose The Boat Race, and I oppose this one too. Resolute 15:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Except that not other country treats their college sports on the same level. Stop with the false equivalencies.Correctron (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Support since we can't win in the opposition of the inclusion of The Boat Race, it is absolutely fair to include this and NCAA Division I Football if we include TBR since they are taken more seriously by the general public and I'm not an American. Donnie Park (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I think "taken more seriously" is pure OR but at the same time I can't help but smile at your inability to discuss any of this without any kind of reference to the Boat Race, which clearly pisses you off! Get over it, and try to think of our readers, tens of thousands of whom picked up the Boat Race article this year, far more than you'd like to believe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Boat Races had 15000 one day and 12600 the next. College Football had 95000. So...Correctron (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
So? Kim Kardashian had more than that. What's that got to do with "taking it seriously"? Get a real answer or don't bother contributing. On second thoughts, that's a moot point. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I know you wanted to defend your Boat Race so much since most of the articles are done by you but who wouldn't want to defend their own Wikipedia works. In defence of Correctron EA had a videogame franchise based on college football, so has your beloved boat race, Mr Oxford Lawyer? Donnie Park (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It most definitely was not Oxford, and certainly not law. Nice try though. And if you believe a video game is a sign of encyclopaedic notability, you'll have to pardon me from not taking anything you ever write here again seriously! You kids will buy anything these days! Toodle pip. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB and AlexTiefling. Neljack (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as every other university sporting event (for what it's worth I also oppose posting the Oxbridge boat race). This is by no means the top level of the sport, it is only open to students at certain universities, and the teams included are an arbitrary selection of a panel rather than decided on objective results. We should restrict ourselves to the top professional competitions in each sport, not limited amateur imitations. I find the argument of media attention to be spurious - we don't post celebrity gossip just because lots of outlets are covering it. Modest Genius talk 10:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It isn't just media attention, but the fact these are significant cultural events that draw a great deal of attention. When the POTUS calls a press conference to announce his basketball tournament bracket picks, there is clearly strong interest in the event. These also are indeed 'top level' college competitions. It's just a different league per se, not a lower level. A lower level would be the NCAA Division II basketball tournament. I would add that college basketball and college football usually draw larger crowds than the respective pro sports. The largest capacity stadiums in the US are college football stadiums(Michigan Stadium). 331dot (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
To add, consider that scouting and recruitment of skilled basketball and football players from high schools and middle schools is extremely common. The NCAA Div I schools put significant money to developing these programs and having the financial resources to draw these students to their schools so they can get more money from alumni and sponsors by having the best players they can recruit. It is not a professional league but it is operated as close to one could envision in that environment, that players are not just randomly selected from their student pool but highly filtered and screened. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Just because people take it seriously doesn't change the fact that it's not the top level of the sport. You could say the same things about investment and scouting for the Football League Championship (more so in fact), but we don't post that for obvious reasons. 'Top college' is irrelevant - it's not the top level of basketball. We don't post every variation of rules or eligibility of a sport, such as the top amateur tennis tournament, top Sunday league football or the top rugby sevens. The fact that the current president is a fan doesn't change my opinion one iota. NCAA, in all sports, is an amateur student competition that is not the top level - they should never be posted. Modest Genius talk 11:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Where does this insistence on "top level" come from? E.g. are you suggesting we remove Six Nations from the rugby union section of ITN (it's not the World Cup, after all, so it's not top level), the NBA Finals (it's not the FIBA World Cup, so not the top level), all the "selected" marathons (what makes those that are selected "top level" to you and not the others?) and what makes both Formula One and Indy Car both "top level" in the same sport? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
ITN has restricted itself to the top level sporting contests since its very inception. Sometimes there is more than one event at the top level, and some sports get more than one item so take the top X events, but that doesn't change the underlying principle. I don't think this is a useful place to discuss whether that is the right approach; the point is simply that it has been the ITN approach forever. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
That may be your recollection, but I don't see that enshrined anywhere in the ITNR items. In fact, most of the initial ITNR items were just added by a couple of editors on a whim. So let's not start pretending to get all nostalgic and claim some kind of restriction of top level. ITNR is about newsworthy items. They may not be at the top level. They may have had their notability discussed ad infinitum and every year be published and every year please our readers (for it is them we serve). If I'm reading the right stats, the last NCAA tournament had nearly a million hits. It was both encyclopedic and interesting to our readers (for it is them we serve). Strikes me a lot of people are acting as fake gatekeepers to this encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I said ITN, not ITNR. Anyway this discussion has become unproductive so I don't see any point in continuing it any further. Modest Genius talk 12:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, but be sure: ITN has never restricted itself to top-level sports. It works on consensus and quality, that's it. I would have thought you'd have known that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: I guess we will just have to disagree about what constitutes 'top level'(though I agree with TRM's sentiment about 'top level'). The NCAA is just a different league. We don't post the NBA D-League because it is indeed a 'lower level' of the sport, just as we don't post the Div II tournament. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting you are mentioning the D-league as a 'lower level' league, when D-league teams will most likely kill the NCAA champ. EVERY American player on ANY D-league team is a former NCAA star, while even the best NCAA teams have 6-10 role players with no chance in professional basketball. Taking a WP:WORLDVIEW, Eurobasket, EuroLeague, Liga ACB etc. are all generally considered better competitions than the NCAA. Timmyshin (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I recognise that consensus is clearly against me here, but I still find the arguments for NCAA being an important competition to be entirely spurious. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
They're only spurious because you disagree with the conclusions. There's only two ways to measure importance: 1) "What I care about" and 2) "What we can show is important to reliable sources because of the level and depth of coverage of the event". The arguments for inclusion of any item on ITN or ITNR based on importance are only spurious if your measure of importance is definition 1) and if you entirely disregard definition 2). However, Wikipedia in general has an ethos of favoring definition 2) in all aspects, that's why it has policies like WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V and many others. --Jayron32 12:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still think to remove all the perennial discussions about these sporting events that some regard as extremely important but others scoff at is to simply incorporate the less notable sporting events into the "recent events" section of the page. I think many users will be receptive to the event being a singular link rather than a whole "blurb". Colipon+(Talk) 14:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Colipon: Do you mean 'Ongoing events'? Your suggestion would be a significant change in the scope of that line, which was not meant for sports events in progress, but to feature an article that is being incrementally updated(and where each individual update would not merit posting, but they would collectively). That would probably need to be discussed separately. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I do mean "ongoing events". I think my proposal fixes almost all the perennial issues at ITN, but I am very pessimistic about raising that as a separate discussion since the 'culture' at ITN seems to throw out "oppose" and "support" liberally without addressing the overarching issues in a consensus-driven process. Colipon+(Talk) 20:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - NCAA basketball (aptly known as March Madness) is more popular in the US than the NBA, the most high profile professional basketball league in the world, and that says something. And March Madness office pool has become a cultural phenomenon. Leaving this out of ITN/R while keeping numerous less popular events makes absolutely no sense. -Zanhe (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose NCAA being more popular than the NBA in the US is definitely a myth. In America, March Madness is very comparable to the NBA Playoffs in ratings. As an example, 2016 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game scored 17.8 million viewers, while the 2015 NBA Finals averaged 19.9 million per game. March Madness is not equivalent to NCAA basketball, it's only the year-end tournament for Division I NCAA basketball. Even if we don't consider Division II and Division III, the NBA destroys the NCAA in average rating/attendance in regular season. Only a few teams like Kansas can compete with the NBA in terms of popularity. Some of the mid-major teams only see a couple hundred people per game, while even the worst NBA team (76ers) averages at least 10,000 people. Outside of the US, frankly, the NCAA receives no mainstream coverage or interest, except in maybe the Philippines or Canada, but even in those places the NBA is far more popular. Basketball is a highly popular global sport, and the failure to be broadcast internationally already indicates a lack of global appeal. In my opinion, there are only 2 universally important basketball events, the NBA and the Olympics. March Madness shouldn't show up on this page if one takes a WP:WORLDVIEW. Timmyshin (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    From the ITN standards, which have been posted at WP:ITNC since time immemorial, "Please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." --Jayron32 11:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed; if global interest or global appeal was required, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Why are you bringing up Divisions II and III? Nobody's trying to add the lower level championships to ITNR. The proposer probably didn't make it clear in the section title, but we're only talking about the final results of the year-end tournament for Division I NCAA basketball (emphasis yours). -Zanhe (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2016 (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.
  • So, to be clear, are we not adding the women's tournament too(despite the previous discussion on that issue)? They are technically different events(unlike others as I noted above). 331dot (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • No, because (1) there was no proposal to add the women's tournament, so they are not covered by a specific consensus, and (2) they are not covered by the general consensus, which is "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified, because they are not simultaneous events. BencherliteTalk 10:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Blizzards, earthquakes, volcano eruptions and other natural disasters

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.

How come these aren't on ITNR? I'm very surprised they're not there in some shape or form. It's arguable that the magnitudes of the natural disasters is a critical factor (so e.g. a magnitude 4 earthquake may not be worth posting), but while the exact line is something that might be discussed, to not have e.g. a magnitude 8 earthquake on ITNR is something that's still very surprising to me. Banedon (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

They aren't "recurring", for the most part. At least not in any predictable manner that ITNR is meant to cover. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, but ITNR also has events like discovery of new scientific elements and launch of manned orbital spaceflights, which aren't recurring either except in the weak sense ("another spaceflight will probably be launched in the next five years"), but then these natural disasters also recur in the weak sense. Banedon (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Going by magnitude alone is pointless. We need to assess the impact of the earthquake, for example a low magnitude quake in a densely populated area will be far more devastating and newsworthy than a higher magnitude quake in a sparsely populated region. Some volcanoes erupt all the time, others have one big bang every millennium. Their newsworthiness needs assessment on a case-by-case basis. Blizzards take place all the time all around the globe. What constitutes a bright-line over which a blizzard becomes automatically notable enough for ITNR? It's not possible to generically define that. That's precisely why each event needs to be assessed individually which makes these events entirely unsuitable for ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose per TRM who said it better than I probably could. If things like this are ITNR, then everything might as well be. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. Every new scientific element is important enough to mention, no matter how infrequently they are found. Every manned spaceflight - the same. Every blizzard, earthquake, volcanic eruption or "other natural disaster"? No. You can't formulate an easily applied rule, which is what ITNR needs. Significant disasters get posted without difficulty already. This suggestion is a problem in search of a problem. BencherliteTalk 10:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, if a blizzard / earthquake / volcanic eruption etc is not notable, it wouldn't have an article. Banedon (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
ITNC does not just weigh notability, but judgements about what is notable enough for the Main Page. We are not a news ticker and do not post every notable event. If you want to make ITN just post everything that has an article, please propose that. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
That applies to every nomination, including items that are currently on ITNR. Are you suggesting we dispose of ITNR then? Banedon (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
ITNR indicates that the judgement about notability has already been made, not that it isn't made at all. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe 331dot has suggested disposing of ITNR at any point. If that's what you suggest Banedon, feel free to start (yet) another discussion here. The mass and arbitrary inclusion of all "Blizzards, earthquakes, volcano eruptions and other natural disasters" is what's being discussed here, and it's clear there's not a jot of appetite to include it at ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Do Blizzards recur? I'm not sure they do; they're rather capricious and random... --Jayron32 11:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The blizzard itself, no, but similar events do, e.g. North American blizzard of 2005 and North American blizzard of 2006. Volcanic eruptions can be argued to recur, as does the Southeast Asian Haze. Banedon (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but their impact is the importance, and that can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Those events are not recurring. There is not a schedule of expected future blizzards. However, we do know when the next U.S. Presidential Election will be and when the next Olympics will be. That's what makes those events on ITNR because they R... --Jayron32 12:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The precise dates of most general elections are not known, compare e.g. Next Dutch general election. We only know it must happen by a certain date. That does not stop elections from being ITNR. There are lots of uncertainties right now in some ITNR items as well, e.g. the date of discovery of the next element is not known. We might be able to say "chances are it will happen in the next two years", but then we can also make statements like "chances are there will be a big earthquake in the next five years". Currently meteors and great comets are listed as ITNR, but the section itself says "meteors and comets are impossible to predict...". Banedon (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The "MISSING THE POINT" klaxon is going off now. We don't and won't post " Blizzards, earthquakes, volcano eruptions and other natural disasters" because it's not their occurrence which is significant enough for ITN, it's their impact. And that can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Now, please, drop the stick. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There are no ITNR items relying on a limit like "earthquakes above magnitude x" or "natural disasters with more than x deaths". Such limits are poorly suited for ITNR. We could have long discussions about where to place the limit, but the impact of an event depends on many other things. It's better to discuss the individual events when they are nominated. Regarding your magnitude 8 example, 2013 Okhotsk Sea earthquake was 8.1. It had no deaths, wasn't nominated, and would probably have been rejected. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Proposal add the Indianapolis Prize winner

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.

This BBC news article (and a few others) describe the Indianapolis Prize as 'the Nobel prize for conservation' - I do see that J._Paul_Getty_Award_for_Conservation_Leadership might also have some claims to that title - but a quick google search suggest it has not been awarded since 2009 - so presumably the Indianapolis Prize becomes the defacto Nobel prize for conservation - and as such should probably appear in ITN/R (I've no vested interest in the article, I'd only heard of the prize as I saw a newspaper article but it seemed like I should have heard of the prize, and this suggestion will potentially rectify that lack of awareness EdwardLane (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Has the prize ever been featured at ITN through the regular ITNC process? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know an easy way to search the archives for that - I was considering proposing it for the current year but I'm not good with blurbs - if you wanted to put it forward I'd support it if the page contained some more of the content from the news articles EdwardLane (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm only repeating what the reliable sources say (calling it the Nobel for conservation)- but yes you may be correct if there is such a prize, in which case you should perhaps nominate those too/instead for ITN/R ? EdwardLane (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) My spider-senses tingle when someone starts describing something as "the Nobel Prize" of X. It's a great way for prize organizers and journalists to get name recognition with little effort. In fact, the people who call it this are those who award it and win it, and then everything else seems then to be lazy journalists churning the same "widely regarded as the Nobel Prize" line in an echo-chamber of press releases and back-slapping. For example, the 2014 prize winner called it this in a piece about the 2014 finalists [10] and in a press release about the 2016 finalists [11], and understandably so - who wouldn't want to "big up" a prize that you'd been shortlisted for or given? The president of the Indianapolis Zoo, which is behind the award, called it this too [12]. Now there's a surprise! Let's see how this fares at ITNC before we start adding it to ITNR. It is perfectly possible for a field of activity not to have a Nobel Prize equivalent, of course. BencherliteTalk 11:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting point - and perhaps justified, I do think there should be a Nobel prize for conservation - and that prize whatever it is called should be on ITN/R , and the Indianapolis prize might not be the correct prize (?) but some journalist (lazy or otherwise) has singled this prize out as a possible contender (presumably much like originally happened for the Nobel prize when it first became famous). If there are other contenders in this field which could be considered as the 'equivalent of the Nobel prize' can you suggest them, and then perhaps whichever is the 'most reported' or some other similar criteria could be used to decide which prize should be ITN/R ? EdwardLane (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on your edit summary "Which prize SHOULD...", the answer should be "Which prize has, in past years, consistently had quality articles and widespread support at WP:ITNC. The answer, of course, should include "none" among the options... Of course, I've long advocated for making ITNR principles apply to every nomination, and focus our primary judgement on article quality, but insofar as we don't do that, we should base ITNR decisions on objectively measurable criteria such as how often we have postings on the subject, and how much prominence it gets in the news on an annual basis. --Jayron32 12:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst I'm not opposed to featuring more conservation on ITN, this prize does not have widespread influence or media interest. A puffery comparison to the Nobels does not make this of similar importance or justify adding it to ITNR. You could try nominating the next prize at ITN/C, though I'm not sure if it will pass. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
OK looks like consensus is opposed - so someone more experienced with these things should probably close this EdwardLane (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2016 (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.