Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 25

[closed (no change to status quo)] Parity proposal: Add Monaco GP OR remove Indy 500

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.

In terms of prestige and status these two single seater races both form part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport, and should be treated at ITNR accordingly. Seemingly strong arguments could be made for why either is more deserving than the other – Monaco is far more distinct from other races in its category than the Indy 500/ the Indy 500 is far more action-packed due to the number of cars, passes, speeds. I'm sure many others will be attempted to be made through the course of this discussion, but all strike me as subjective. What matters' is the races' respective standing and significance to the sport, and both are seen as being far and away the race every driver wants to win the most within their respective series. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment - also worthy of note is that these races usually take place on the same weekend. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Question you say both are seen as being far and away the race every driver wants to win the most within their respective series but I'm wondering if that's actually true, certainly with respect to Monaco. After all it's typically a parade and he who qualifies pole just has to get his car round the track without pranging it to win. I think the overall F1 title is far more important than any individual race, and I don't think the same can be said for Indy 500. But that's really just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As for the race everyone wants to win most, I'd strongly say yes. Whether it's everyone's favourite race is a different question altogether (some drivers love street circuits, others loathe them), but in terms of the prestige of winning it in one's career, yes. On your latter point, is that a reflection on the individual events, or on the sport as a whole? And is that a positive or negative reflection on the overall health of the sport? My experience is that the level of importance attached to Monaco is inversely proportional to the current level of success of F1 as a whole. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have any quotes from recent drivers that might substantiate that claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Three-time world champion Lewis Hamilton "But naturally Monaco is the race everyone wants to win. I’ve literally lost three opportunities that I’ve had – maybe four – over my career with the car to do it." Mark Webber, on his victory in 2010 "It is absolutely incredible. It’s the greatest day of my life today, to win here is very, very special." (in the same article, which includes Webber's 2010 success but in the context of an article which did not focus on their team, Red Bull state "The Monaco Grand Prix consistently throws up drama like no other race on the F1 calendar. That's perhaps no surprise, as it’s the race everyone wants to win." Multiple Le Mans winner and former F1 driver Allan McNish "Just as every driver wants to win Monaco, every fan wants to go there. And quite right, too. There is, quite simply, nothing else like it." Heikki Kovalainen "Monaco's the race everyone in F1 wants to win, and it's not just a famous F1 race, it's one of the biggest annual events in the world." StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't decided yet if Monaco should be added but I oppose removing the Indy 500. Significance to the sport doesn't just mean to those involved in it, but to casual readers and fans who may be interested in reading an article about it. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Are we talking about the fewer than six million Americans who watched the 100th edition? Or trying to assert that casual readers who have little interest in watching oval track racing would prefer to read about it, relative to people who did not watch a race around the tight, winding streets of a medieval principality but might be inclined to read about it? I can certainly see the argument for why people would be more excited watching the Indy 500 than Monaco (and vice versa), but find the argument for reading about one or the other having not watched either far more likely to fall in favour of the latter. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Monaco GP: This was actually removed from ITNR in 2015, and the arguments then still hold. The Monaco GP is not treated by the media or the competitors as significantly more important than other GPs. It is one of several opportunities in the year to gain points towards the Championship. The Championship itself is an ITNR item, and this is appropriate and sufficient coverage for the sport. --LukeSurl t c 14:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that the scope of this discussion is not "should we (re-)add Monaco?", but "why should we not treat these two events in the same manner?". Bolded "oppose adding Monaco" votes are not helpful in that context, as the logical follow-up to a discussion that ends in that manner would be to propose the removal of Indy 500. What should be supported or opposed is the principle of parity between these two events, so that we can come to a consensus on the appropriate solution. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • These are separate events, for different sports, on different continents. "The Triple Crown of Motorsport" is a somewhat archaic concept and it does not bind us to treat these events identically. We should consider these events independently on their own merits. --LukeSurl t c 15:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's an evasive answer to put it unduly mildly. If the merits of these two events are clearly different, there should be no issue in demonstrating that what at a glance, appears to be a contradictory position, is not so. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak remove Indy 500. Posting the result of the series is enough coverage for those sports. The Monaco GP has tradition, but so do many Grands Prix and there isn't really any reason to elevate that one race to a full blurb. It was correct to remove it from ITNR. I'm less familiar with the Indy 500, but am persuaded that we should be consistent. The Triple Crown really doesn't attract much attention at all; it seems to be either an outdated concept or one that was only ever of trivia interest. Modest Genius talk 12:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Are we able to get some more eyes on this? If there's consensus that the two races should (or should not) be treated the same then so be it. At this point there is no consensus, which would actually demonstrate the problem with ITNR's one article at a time approach, and therefore validate my proposal for consistency. A far better outcome would be to come to a decision (be that to add Monaco, remove Indy 500, or to come to a consensus that we should maintain the status quo). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Have notified WikiProject Motorsport, WikiProject Formula One and WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I would also make the point, which has been made but not explicitly, that these races usually take place on the same day. Therefore there is the potential for a double-post without adding to the number of Motorsport updates per year. This approach would address this question of consistency, and length wise is analogous to the approach taken between (as an example) Grand Slam singles finals. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The two events aren't analogous pbp 14:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The local and international significance of the two events is absolutely not comparable. While there may be some slight degree of increased interest in the Monaco race compared to the other races within the Formula 1 season, this is not huge and in most part the external coverage (TV, news media, etc.) is on a par with other events. The Indianapolis 500 race received a huge degree of extra interest, both within North America and internationally, in comparison to the rest of the IndyCar Series races. Drivers who win Indy can become well known because of their win, indeed often admitted to the Motorsports Hall of Fame, despite never having won the overall championship (e.g. Gordon Johncock, Mark Donohue, Jim Clark, Arie Luyendyk and others). For F1 drivers to become particularly associated with the Monaco race normally takes multiple wins (Graham Hill, Ayrton Senna) not just one or two successes. Indy is the only race that multiple F1 teams have made a serious shot at contesting (e.g. Cooper, Lotus, McLaren) often doing so without entering another race in the series. In short, the two races are treated differently because they are different. Pyrope 07:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pyrope. -Drdisque (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2017 (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.

[Removed] Proposed removal: Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final

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.

In light of the recent announcement by the National Hockey League that it will not participate in the upcoming 2018 Olympics,[1] and thus result in not featuring some of "the best players" in the world, I would like to take a survey on whether the Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final should remain here on ITNR. To review some of the related discussions:

  • A 2013 discussion that was never closed.
  • The nomination to add the 2014 final to ITN was unsuccessful, and was archived with no consensus.
  • A 2014 discussion that ended with no consensus. And as I mentioned in that prior 2014 discussion, if the National Hockey League declines "to send 'the best players'" (which they have now done), the Olympics teams will then comprise of amateurs or players from other leagues. Then, "Some of these subjective arguments that "it's the most premier ice hockey tournament" will become even more subjective. At least the IIHF World Championships will always have some NHL players (from those teams eliminated from playoff contention)".

Again, we should not single out one Olympic sport over all the others, regardless if it may be the "most watched" or "most important" event. This point was made very clear on ITN/C when the Rio Olympics was going on last year:

  • The nominations of the 2016 Women's 100 metres and Men's 100 metres were rejected. The one who closed that discussion wrote, "This is why we have Ongoing and why the Olympics are listed".[2]
  • Nominations for separate Olympic records was also rejected.[3][4][5] The common reason was, again, the link on the Ongoing line.
  • A notice was then posted at the top of WP:ITN/C,[6] warning that such future nominations would likely be WP:SNOW rejected, referencing the previous failed nominations and the Ongoing link.
  • Since the Ongoing links were frequently cited in the above points, it should be noted that it was not proposed until April 2014, two months after the Olympics. After a trial, Ongoing became permanent around May 2014 (per discussion).

So to sum up, we now have the Ongoing links to list the Olympic chronological summaries articles, and we have the precedent of what we did last year in not singling out one particular Olympics event. And now we have the National Hockey League announcing that its best players will not go to the Olympics, leaving many of the teams like Canada and the U.S. likely left with just amateurs -- which then raises doubts on if it should still be considered the "most watched" or "most important" event when compared to figure skating or another winter sport. And in fact, AFAIK, no concrete evidence has ever been presenting yet that clearly establishes that ice hockey is the "most watched" or "most important" Winter Olympics event over figure skating or the others. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose You can't make any decision until closer to the Olympics. The situation might change and this is still the most important event for ice hockey. This is not about singling out an event. It just so happens that the sports most important event is the Olympics. LordAtlas (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
"The sports most important event is the Olympic" could be said about any sport, figure skating, you name it. If we go by that simple argument, all the other finals and gold medals in the other Olympic sports should be posted, not just men's ice hockey. That is why there was major opposition in 2014 to actually get in on ITN, despite being listed here on ITNR. And why a warning notice was posted last year, basically not to single out one event.[7] As to why I'm doing this discussion now instead of closer to January? Curiosity. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Until there are no NHLers on the final rosters, most obviously for Canada and the US, nothing has changed other than Bettman has made a statement that can still change. LordAtlas (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
That does not change the other major argument: No Olympic event should be singled out on ITNR. All the other Olympic events can, and are usually considered, as you stated, "The sports most important event is the Olympics". Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Removal - as the nominator notes, the Winter Olympics will be an 'ongoing' event and it will be odd to highlight a single final for a blurb. 'Ongoing' was not a feature when this was added to ITNR, so this changes the situation significantly. --LukeSurl t c 07:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove per LukeSurl. It's not clear currently that the most important event in the Winter Olympics is men's ice hockey, and it's certainly not the case that only in men's ice hockey is the Olympics the most important event (even if that is true) - it certainly seems that way in skeleton (spot) for example. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove only because the best players may not necessarily be there, given the decision of the NHL to not stop its season for the Olympics. I think it merits being singled out for the other reasons I've stated before(which I won't repeat here) but only if the best players are there. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the reasons I articulated in the 2014 discussion (I won't repeat them here). However, it may be worth adding a caveat to the ITNR entry that this will be posted only if NHL players participate. If NHL players are there, it's the top international ice hockey tournament and should therefore be posted. If Bettman continues to act like a toddler holding on to his toys, then the standard will be seriously lower and roughly equivalent to the IIHF World Championship, so there isn't a reason to favour it. At this stage we simply don't know what will happen - it could well be sabre-rattling in order to drive a deal. There are also several players who have indicated that they will compete in the Olympics even if the NHL asks them to not to - it's possible that NHL players will end up there even if the league disapproves. Given that that is all that has changed since the 2014 discussion, there's no reason to overturn it. Modest Genius talk 12:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The NHL has already stated they will not participate in the Olympics and that the matter is closed [8], hence my statement above. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
a) That might not actually stop players going, despite league disapproval; b) The NHL has a history of ruling things out and then doing them anyway (taking over the Coyotes, for example); c) That only applies to 2018. Modest Genius talk 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough- but even if a few players ignore the NHL, the league's decision will likely suppress the number of players who go, reducing the caliber of the tournament. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove: Seems to be one of a very, very Olympic events that's an ITNR. We don't have the 100 meters, the decathlon or the marathon as recurring, we should not have this either. pbp 13:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: While I think this should be removed for another reason, the reason this is singled out and not the 100 meters is that the 100 meters at the Olympics is not of a higher stature than 100 meters non-Olympic competitions. In Olympic years, the men's ice hockey tournament has a greater stature than the world championship because the best players(until this year) did not participate in the world championships, but did in the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Badminton World championship are cancelled in Olympic years, so all best players can play in the Olympics. Why not single Badminton out too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ice hockey is far more popular than badminton and badminton is at a far larger event (the summer Olympics are much larger than the Winter). Also, there is a difference between not holding a world championship in an Olympic year(which several sports do) and a professional league declining to allow its players (who have signed contracts) to go. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctant remove. I like the idea of having an event as a focal point for the Winter Olympics, but unlike the 100m it's questionable whether a Winter Olympics held outside of US or Canada has such a focal point (in a US or Canadian Olympics we should post it through a normal ITNC nomination, which would pass due to it being easy to demonstrate that the event was receiving coverage and interest which dwarfed everything else). In particular, I oppose any solution which has a clause dependent on whether NHL players participate. There is the question of whether such a clause indicates systemic bias. But more to the point, if the notability of what we are arguing is the most important event is dependent on whether NHL players participate, then we have answered our own question about whether it is more notable than the other events – it would derive notability due to a combination of past prestige and from having participants from one domestic league which was more notable than the competition under discussion. Not unlike the relationship between the Premier League and FA Cup. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove It was already difficult to justify singling this out from every other Olympic event, many of which are also the biggest events in their sport and some of which (e.g. the 100m sprints) get greater international attention. This announcement seals it. Neljack (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is ready for an admin to asses consensus, as there has been no new comments for almost 3 weeks. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2017 (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 (kept)] Proposed removal: Indian Premier League

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.

Indian Premier League is a domestic cricket league. There was a discussion for ITN/R listing in 2010 but it faced opposition. It was then added to ITN/R in 2011 solely because "India is undercovered" and is "a country of 1 billion people", which seems to be a flawed logic. By that logic, every regular event that happens in China should be ITN/R.

I'm not sure it is notable enough. Sorry, we can't go posting the domestic T20 leagues in every major cricket-playing nation. If we keep India's equivalent then we would also have to post/add those in Australia (Big Bash League), Pakistan (Pakistan Super League), England (NatWest t20 Blast) and maybe the West Indies (Caribbean Premier League) too, all of which are just as high-level and prestigious. I don't see why the IPL is more notable than the others. If this is continued to be posted, it will open the floodgates for at least five stories a year.

Proposing the removal from ITN/R only. Not intended to prevent it from being posted pending consensus to do so, following a nomination at WP:ITNC. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep IPL is more prestigious than those noted above. One ITNR listing does not open floodgates for "at least five stories a year" at all. In fact, in a way it's the opposite, because you can currently say "IPL was only posted because it was ITNR". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Proof ??? Prestigious means "inspiring respect and admiration". I doubt it has that after the 2012 Indian Premier League spot-fixing case and the 2013 Indian Premier League spot-fixing and betting case. Prestigious also means "having high status", which again it lacks because it still is a domestic cricket league like the rest.
Besides per ITN Criteria, candidates are evaluated on "the significance of the developments".- Mfarazbaig (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
So it isn't opening the floodgates then? I'm not following your arguments at all I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Article quality is regularly up-to-snuff, competition has a high level of interest. --Jayron32 12:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the other T20 leagues simply don't get the international coverage because they aren't as high-level or prestigious, and the floodgates haven't opened for other T20 leagues since this has been on ITNR. BencherliteTalk 12:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sadly, comments like "high level of interest" don't satisfy the notability significance question. PSL which was ITNC, wasn't posted despite getting international coverage in addition to, in The Diplomat here and here, in Bloomberg and in NYT for whatever reasons. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    This is a decision on whether an item remains ITNR. There isn't a "notability question", as that's satisfied by the existence of the articles. That the community decided not to post the PSL should satisfy you that the floodgates haven't opened. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    1) Significance is assessed by interest. This has high interest, so it is significant. 2) Other articles, when not posted, are usually not posted because the quality of the article. If you want a different article to be posted, you should clean up that article then nominate it. The posting, or not posting, of another article can happen for any number of reasons, most of which are probably not applicable to this discussion, which is why other articles are irrelevant. --Jayron32 13:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    1) PSL also generated high interest despite not making it to the Main Page (see comparison). 2) It wasn't the 'quality of the article' but the floodgate argument that prevented the PSL's blurb making it to the Main Page. The other articles are very much relevant since the floodgate (read: other articles) argument was used in PSL's ITNC. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    The errors of the past do not justify their continuation merely by their own existence. --Jayron32 04:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral – This may be somewhat of an English-language bias on the English Wikipedia (as happens quite often with British and American news as well), though it is clear that this league is of interest to a huge number of people (simply because of India's population). I think that this league's international coverage speaks for itself, but it's also important to compare it with other national leagues. Various soccer leagues completed in the past two weeks (including English, German, Dutch, Spanish, and Italian, if I'm not mistaken). How do all of these compare? I have no idea. I'm not really interested in sports, but seeing as we have so many leagues ending simultaneously, I wonder if we could balance this all out. ~Mable (chat) 12:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep As identified, IPL gains international coverage, and interested WP editors appear to keep these articles up to date each year. If any of the other T20 leagues had similar annual metrics (wide international coverage and quality articles shortly after the event was complete) then we can discuss adding those. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have the following 4 arguments:
i. Adding IPL to ITN/R in 2011 solely because "India is undercovered" and is "a country of 1 billion people" was a flawed logic as stated above.
Not relevant, community consensus was what enabled it to be elected to ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
ii. The floodgate argument. The same people countering it here, should also have done so when it was presented in response to PSL ITNC. If this is an invalid argument then decide to never allow it to be used against any ITNC again.
Not at all, anyone can use any argument they believe in at any ITNC nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
iii. Everyone is talking about the 'international coverage' but no one has provided it here. It's 2017 now, things have changed since 2011. Many new domestic cricket leagues have emerged since. IPL's being 'In the News' needs to be established.
IPL has massive coverage, we even have live radio coverage of every match in the UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
iv. If its about cricket then ICC Champions Trophy can take its place. And IPL can battle it out on ITNC instead of being a ITN/R. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Nothing needs to take its place if the community decides against its inclusion in ITNR. They can both be ITNRs if the community agrees that the ICC Champions Trophy is also worth including. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. From the article: "The IPL is the most-attended cricket league in the world and ranks sixth among all sports leagues." (Major League Baseball is 7th for comparison [9], it is broadcast to 16 countires plus the "Arab World" and "sub-Saharan Africa" and on the internet. It is undoubtedly the most significant T20 competition in the world, indeed the most significant cricket competition by some measures (The Ashes is undoubtedly more prestigious though). Looking at all the objective measures it's clear that it is significant enough to post every year, and the track record of article quality is excellent so I see no justification for removal. If you wish to see the ICC Champions Trophy or any other event on ITN/R then propose it - it isn't a one in one out system. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Can we just call this like it is? A Pakistani user is upset the Indian league is posted while the Pakistani league isn't. That's what this is about. This is ITN/R because of interest and quality. LordAtlas (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Look, I'd love to get rid of this. The IPL and Twenty20 generally are both circus acts. Ideally we would have the taste to ignore it. But that's my subjective opinion. Clearly there are many people in the world who lap this rubbish up. The IPL is certainly in a different category from the other domestic Twenty20 leagues, as a number of editors cogently explain above. So much so that it can hardly be described as "domestic". There is absolutely no problem with having it as ITN/R while others miss out.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2017 (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.

ITNR sports nominated for "ongoing" (and usually failing)

As this comes up every so often, I boldly added a few words about this here, and have linked five discussions (there may be more) in which an ITNR sporting event was nominated for the "ongoing" slot without success, and noted that Olympics / Football World Cup are exceptions. Improvement (including further links) / discussion welcome. BencherliteTalk 17:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Applause. Not guaranteeing it'll stop anything, but, nevertheless, applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a note on wording that I think the Olympics were part of the reason to craft Ongoing, to avoid several sports-related stories over a two week period (eg Ongoing by design was specifically to provide a proper way to present the Olympics, it wasn't so much the Olympics got added after the fact). --MASEM (t) 18:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
You may well be right, but I can't immediately find a discussion in the archives about adding the "ongoing" section... BencherliteTalk 18:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Initial point that I can find (of the most recent iteration, there was stuff back in 2006, apparently, particularly with the Olmypics that were stickied to the box). Another useful discussion is after the trial run here. Both Olympics and World Cup come up there. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Cross post WT:ITN/R discussions to WT:ITN

Minor procedural thing here but it might be helpful to post a notice at WT:ITN whenever a new section is added to WT:ITN/R. If there was ever a haunt for the "regulars" it's this talk page. Lets try to get some more participation. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
As long as it's clear that its a link to a discussion on that page rather than a discussion itself (so as to keep it all in one place) then go ahead. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Why not have all "ITNR" discussions at the ITN talk page, and make this a redirect, in the same way that the talk page of ITNC redirects to the main ITN talk page? That way all discussions on all ITN topics are centralised. BencherliteTalk 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That's probably the simplest option. The combined activity of both of these talk pages wouldn't be burdensome, and the same people are likely to be interested in both. --LukeSurl t c 16:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd also support a merge of the discussion pages. --Jayron32 17:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I see no issue with merging pages, we may need to make sure the archives of the merged ones are easy to search. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
We just add something like this to the top of the ITN talk page:
BencherliteTalk 21:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. Just make sure that all open discussions are closed or moved (with notification for participants) when the merge is done. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I prefer to keep the talk pages separate, as they're really different topics. It's not overly onerous for interested editors to put two pages onto their watchlists. There doesn't seem to be a problem here, so no need for a change. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I've cross-posted notice of the proposed addition below to WT:ITN, lets see if that has any effect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

[Added] Proposed addition: Women's Cricket World Cup

Considering the near-unanimous support the recent nomination got at ITN/C, I assume we can add this once-every-four-year event to ITN/R > Sports > Cricket > One-day tournaments without controversy? --LukeSurl t c 11:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support no brainer. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Major international tournament. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This event's importance and media coverage have grown significantly over the years and it should definitely be added.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support While there are other sports where due to lack of worldwide attention on the women's side (ala WNBA finals) this one definitely has a larger amount of attention and importance. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support deservedly front page news in the UK and elsewhere, which is truly astonishing considering how women's cricket has been regarded in the past. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per the above and my comments on the recent nomination. I oppose automatic adding of every women's event not held simultaneously with the directly equivalent men's event (and vice versa), as not all are equally significant but the cricket world cups are. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Women's cricket has hugely gained in profile, coverage and popular interest over the last decade, to the point where I think this competition reaches the general standard we should apply to all sporting events. Happy to see this listed. Other women-only events should continue to be nominated and considered on their own merits, not inherited from the men's competition in their sport. Modest Genius talk 14:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per the above: I have nothing new to add. Vanamonde (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Added. BencherliteTalk 11:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Recurring events of interest

Following from the above entry on removing the G20 entry, with acknowledging that if something interesting happens a normal ITNC can happen, I'd like to propose a list of similar events that are on a short list of events that we do consider important (we don't beg their place in the big picture) but that we only post if something significant happens. An INTC involving these events should not question the recurring event's notability, but only if the result of that current event itself is ITN-worthy (plus article quality, etc.)

For example, no one seems to deny that the G20 meetings are fundamentally important, but they also more often than not are a lot of promises and commitments but no significant actions taken. Once in a while a G20 event will lead to a world-changing issue, and that's when we should post. Similarly, tradeshows like Electronic Entertainment Expo and Consumer Electronics Show normally don't have that much buzz but once in a while new lines of products are released that grab a great deal of press attention. There's probably various things like other G8 meetings, UN Security Council meetings, and other trade shows that would fall under this. Probably a number of awards and sporting events too that aren't listed at ITNR.

To handle these, these should be in a list that designates the recurring event as one that we recognize as important, but that the recurrence is not automatic to post as an ITNR entry would be. This would focus the discussion on whether the specific result from the event is considered important, as well as article quality and update, of course. The newsworthiness of the recurring event should not be the subject of discussion to avoid wasting time (as the most recent G20 ITNC has had). As to what to actually call this, I have no good simple name, outside of "events of interest". --MASEM (t) 14:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you envision this as a separate page, or as an additional but separate section of the ITNR list? 331dot (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
A short list at the end of ITNR (so its all maintained in one place). I don't expect this list to be as exhaustive as the current ITNR list. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought, I just wasn't sure. That makes sense to me. 331dot (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a good idea. ITN/R could be described as "always notable, always significant" and the new list as "always notable, significance varies". Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I think any notable outcome of a particular G-whatever summit or other major meeting already falls under the scope of normal ITN, so there's no need to prepare any list. For example, if a certain G summit agrees on carbon emission reduction, this most likely would be posted anyway. Brandmeistertalk 20:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Firm support - good idea, good implementation. I'd be game. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I very much like this idea, and would love to see it implemented, but am not entirely certain what its advantage would be. Notability as in WP:N is of course irrelevant to ITN, but I get the idea of "this is an event of interest." Is the idea that, as long as you can write a good blurb for it and the quality is up to par, it should go up? Because for most sporting events, that wouldn't be any different from ITN/R. Isn't a "lack of nesworthiness" not the issue of the recent G20? ~Mable (chat) 08:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm, not sure how useful this will be and there's the potential for confusion if they're all on the same page - I can see nominations saying 'this is on ITNR' when it's actually in the 'not really ITNR' section. Maybe a trial might be worthwhile; call it 'items to watch'? Modest Genius talk 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove AFC Asian Cup

This was nominated in 2007, and to the best of my reading was not posted. The support votes seemed to be either partisan or of the opinion that all confederations should be posted (note that OFC and CONCACAF are not currently on ITNR). The opposition mostly indicated this was not on par with the Euros or Copa America. It was nominated in 2011 as an ITNR and posted. I cannot find the consensus discussion to add it to ITNR. In 2015, it was not nominated. I'm recommending this for removal on the following grounds:

  • It is not clear this item has ever reached consensus.
  • The omission of the 2015 Cup is an indictment of it's importance.
  • Even if an ITNR discussion did occur, this should not have been added to ITNR as it most recent (only?) nom at ITNC had been rejected. GCG (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. It is not clear this item has ever reached consensus. -- There are a lot of items on ITN/R for which their inclusion appears to have come out of nowhere, having been on the draft list when ITN/R became policy. I remember in about mid-2013 there was a lot of talk (but not much action) regarding overhauling ITN/R, which included "confirmation hearings" for such items. This never happened, and I don't think many editors had the stomach for two dozen ITN/R discussions. By now I think we can consider such items "grandfathered in" to the list by merit of not being removed for the best part of a decade, and their obscure origin is not a strong argument.
  2. The omission of the 2015 Cup is an indictment of it's importance. - Possibly, but that's a bit "circumstantial". Items get omitted from ITNC fairly often. If you think this event is not ITNR material—which is possible, it's basically the number 4 continental championship—we should discuss that on the merits of the event, rather than the behaviour of Wikipedia editors. Note that Wimbledon failed to be posted due to poor article quality this year.
  3. Even if an ITNR discussion did occur, this should not have been added to ITNR as it most recent (only?) nom at ITNC had been rejected. - The 2011 nomination was posted, I don't follow.
Short version, if this item is to be removed, make an argument on the actual importance of the event, rather than on how Wikipedia editors have reacted to it years ago. --LukeSurl t c 13:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The presence of any item at ITNR indicates "that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN." The evidence I presented serves to indicate that this patently untrue as the only discussion of the importance of this item decided it was not. In any case, the validity of the ITNR will be affirmed here if it is not removed (which is meaningful). I present the 2007 discussion as my argument against importance. I would also point to the current DOA nom for the CONCACAF cup as proof that lesser confederations needn't be posted. If we weigh teams like Saudi Arabia (finalists in 6 of the last 9 AFC cups) against Mexico and the U.S., we can see that this is clearly not a premier event of the game. In my opinion, regardless of how you rank them, there are two premier confederation cups, and then a massive drop-off before...whatever. So the right thing to do is include all or just the two. I prefer just the two. GCG (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The 2011 nomination was posted, I don't follow. Sorry, it was nominated in 2011 for ITNC with an ITNR tag, meaning it was not subject to debate on importance at that time. GCG (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW I'm kinda neutral on this, could be persuaded either way. One thing that counts in its favour for me is that it occurs in January/February, when there isn't that many high-level sport blurbs being posted. On the other hand, it is IMO significantly below the UEFA European Championship, Copa América, and Africa_Cup_of_Nations in importance. --LukeSurl t c 16:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I've read and reread this several times and I'm firmly on the fence here. Normally I wouldn't bother to post this, but the nomination has been sitting here apparently ignored for several days without there being a clear consensus, so making it appear on watchlists may get it some more attention. Thryduulf (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Tough one. It's clear that the AFC competition is well below the standard of the Euros and Cope America, and lower in profile than AFCON too. However, at the same time it is far more competitive than the OFC and CONCACAF versions. I think this is pretty much borderline in terms of the profile of the event. The number of football stories per year is not excessive, if anything it's a little low for the most popular sport in the world (by a large margin). AFC has the added benefits of not being at the same time of year as the others and helping with WP:BIAS. We could leave it to ITN/C, but the arguments really come down to comparing with other events we do/don't post so would be better sorted out in advance here. The articles for 2015 look reasonable (especially 2015 AFC Asian Cup Final) which suggests it could easily have been posted if nominated. Failure to nominate is not necessarily an indictment of the importance of the event - it's not as bad as being nominated and failing on either update quality or importance. 2007 is of little relevance as ITN has developed over the last decade. The 2019 article is shaping up well, two years ahead of time. After some thought, I'm coming down as keep as I don't think we need to trim the number of association football entries and the arguments for removal are not very convincing. Modest Genius talk 11:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just one more appeal, especially to the fence sitters. Clearly there is a bigger crowd at ITNC than here. We just eviscerated the CONCACAF nom. Even if AFC is more important, surely there will some opposition to it on the same grounds. The larger group should be allowed to speak to consensus. ITNR was meant to bypass debate when an argument was already settled; this debate was never allowed to occur. Even if you think this event should be posted, it should be removed from ITNR and be required to stand on its own feet one time. GCG (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    Not entirely: ITNR is also intended to allow predictable events to be discussed in advance. See e.g. "editors can foresee them and prepare for their inclusion" at the top of the page. Additional commentators are welcome to join this discussion. Modest Genius talk 10:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You are correct; that's an important distinction. Mea culpa. GCG (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Change to Elections and heads of state

Current ITNR provides for a change to heads of state, where changes to heads of government are discussed on their own merits. Propose to change the ITNR provision to those offices "whose constitutionally interpreted positions (e.g. de jure) individually administer the governmental executive, legislature" as noted in yellow on this list. Heads of state and government not provided for by this provision would be discussed on their own merits. GCG (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That would exclude posting when Prince Charles ascends to the throne. Changes to this have been discussed off and on over the years and none has gained consensus. Heads of state represent their nations to the world and even if they lack tangible power are still significant. It's also at least a chance for underrepresented nations to get a posting to ITN. Heads of government vary in importance; some are powerful, some are figureheads, some are chosen by the head of state, and so on. Most changes in head of government are posted as part of a general election(which is ITNR). 331dot (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Heads of government elections would probably fall under my "Recurring events of interest" list a few sections proposed above. We recognize they are important but depends on the country. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. Especially when a party in government changes its PM in between elections, or figurehead heads of government. As I told GCG, most changes to head of government are posted as part of a general election(X party, led by John Doe, won the election). 331dot (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current state of affairs works fine. This is a solution looking for a problem. Please stop proposing a new rule or ITN/R change almost every day, it's not helpful. --LukeSurl t c 14:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe (perhaps wrongly) that this ITNR was meant to relate to the leaders of their countries. People like Theresa May, Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel & Shinzō Abe are not covered. If I was AfDing Winston Churchill, I could see your point. But I should be able to propose a rule change if I see a good faith opportunity for improvement; you can oppose it or ignore it. Telling people to "sit down and shut up" is not an attitude in line with a community website. GCG (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I might not have said what LukeSurl said but I would encourage you to maybe do a little research into why things are the way they are before proposing rule changes- or at least to let the discussion on one proposed change run its course before proposing a new one. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose by default, there's nothing grossly wrong with our current status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the others—contrary to popular belief, when something is an established practice on Wikipedia it's almost always because there was a lengthy discussion that led to that practice becoming established. If you want a change, you need to demonstrate why the existing system is causing problems, which you're singularly failing to do—as has been pointed out above, in those countries like Britain and Germany where the head of government is more significant than the head of state, then there will almost invariably be either an automatically notable general election story to accompany any change of government, or a government falling in such exceptional circumstances that the story will be notable in its own right. GreatCaesarsGhost, Assume Good Faith is not infinite; at the time of writing you have more edits to ITN/C than to the rest of Wikipedia combined and your first edit shows you're clearly not a genuine newcomer. If you're so keen on Wikipedia policies, I strongly recommend brushing up on Wikipedia's policies on abusing multiple accounts. ‑ Iridescent 15:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    I'll confess to lurking for a few months prior to editing, but this is my first and only profile. I would think that all my failures in this arena would demonstrate that I'm not a tenured user. At any rate, I can read a consensus when I see it; I'll stay away from the rule changes. Sincere apologies to all; I did mean well. GCG (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support "head of state" req is silly. Canada's head of state is Queen Elizabeth. Yellow box on the list makes sense. Whoever is the day-to-day executive for the country goes in to ITN. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
In most cases we already do that, as noted above. Queen Elizabeth is the head of state of several countries, all the more reason to post a change in her position.331dot (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
We're succeeding despite a nonsense policy. This proposal simply aligns the policy with practice, which makes sense to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Or it duplicates what existing policy calls for. There are some changes in head of government that aren't significant(a party changing its PM on its own which usually does not result in policy changes). Heads of state always have some degree of significance. As stated above, this is a solution looking for a problem. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
LOL when QE is replaced as head of state it'll be because she's dead and will be on ITN anyway. I don't understand the hostility here. The yellow box on the list indicates who is actually in charge vs who is a pointless figurehead. Aligning the policy to the list seems obvious to me. *shrugs* I guess I'm just not that smart, better to keep it ambiguous and have silliness like what just happened around Pakistan right? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan Super League

Pakistan Super League (PSL) is very popular and noteable not only in Pakistan but also in some other countries. Amirk94391 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amirk94391: Okay. Are you proposing that this be added to the ITNR list? I don't recall this ever being nominated at ITNC before; it should probably be tested there first. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Amirk94391: Searching the archives at WP:ITNC, it seems that is has never been nominated. It has been mentioned in two previous discussions I can find, and not positively:
  • At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2009#March 22 an IP commented "It is a well known fact in cricketing world that IPL is the first and currently the only domestic league of its kind. Other cricket leagues, namely Stanford 20/20, KFC Twenty20 Big Bash, Twenty20 Cup and Pakistan Super League, barely attract any players from other countries." This was in a nomination of the announcement the second season of the IPL being played outside India.
  • At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2017#[Posted] Indian Premier League Mfarazbaig said "I'm not sure it is notable enough. Sorry, we can't go posting the domestic T20 leagues in every major cricket-playing nation. If we post India's equivalent then we would also have to post those in Australia, Pakistan and maybe the West Indies too, all of which are just as high-level and prestigious."
  • In the same May 2017 discussion Dmmaus said " I disagree that other domestic T20 competitions are on the same standing as the IPL. The IPL receives more media attention globally than the domestic T20 competitions in Australia, Pakistan, or the West Indies, and attracts the biggest international players and the highest contracts."
Given this, this has no chance of being added to ITNR at this time. I suggest you nominate the final of the 2018 competition (as the 2017 one has been and gone) at WP:ITN/C. If that nomination is (almost) unanimously supported based on the significance then you could nominate it again here afterwards (this was the case for the Women's Cricket World Cup recently). If however the nomination receives significant opposition on the significance, then it'll be best to wait until it's been posted two or three times at ITN/C before a nomination here. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Well good for the PSL. What is your point? It's certainly nowhere near suitable for adding to ITNR; by my reckoning this is the fourth-highest-profile domestic T20 competition in the world. Even posting one of those (the IPL) is debatable, though has reached consensus. There's no chance of posting more of them. Modest Genius talk 10:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I nominated this at ITNC this year. (see here)
@331dot: You may not recall but you supported its nomination at ITNC in February.
@Thryduulf: To counter the first point of your argument, you first need to know that Pakistan Super League did not even exist back in 2009. The IP surely was an overzealous Indian praising the IPL.
Secondly, it's unfortunate that you don't know the difference between Indian Premier League (IPL) and Pakistan Super League (PSL). You have misrepresented my comment that was made regarding the IPL and not about PSL. I request you make amends.
Thirdly, as to what @Dmmaus: said. Unlike IPL where the players are auctioned, the PSL uses a draft system. That is why players in the IPL get highest contracts and comparing the two would be like comparing apples and oranges. Also, both IPL and PSL attract very much the same big international players. For example, Eoin Morgan, Tymal Mills, Jason Roy, Chris Gayle, Brendon McCullum, Kieron Pollard, Samuel Badree, Mohammad Nabi, Chris Jordan, Darren Sammy, Marlon Samuels, Sunil Narine, Dwayne Smith and Sam Billings played the 2017 editions of both IPL and PSL. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose no compelling argument to not see this go through ITNC. There are vast numbers of Pakistani editors here, cricket editors here, etc, so if this really is a big enough deal then we'll see a consensus in its favour next time round, and then we can debate ITNR. Right now, if we don't even post after ITNC, we definitely don't add to ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for jogging my memory. I still am unsure as to putting it on the list. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not sure why my search didn't find this year's nomination, but given that it received very significant opposition on grounds of importance and significance (Modest Genius' comments are particularly relevant) adding it to ITN/R would first necessitate a fundamental change in the requirements - "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion, this can preferably wait as the PSL only just finished its 2nd season this year. Once the brand grows, and more international players and broadcasters join in addition to the existing ones, this could possibly be arguable. The PSL's expansion and scope is no doubt impressive, knowing the league is in its infancy. Modest Genius above mentioned that it is the fourth highest-profile league, although the season 1 viewership figures in 2016 showed that it had 65 million television viewers in peak periods. So it is more likely second-placed in terms of viewership. The values of the franchises and base salaries of players are equivalent if not greater than those of Australia's Big Bash. Three out of the five current PSL franchise owners have also purchased franchises in Hong Kong (Islamabad United Owners Buy Hong Kong T20 Blitz Team) and South Africa's T20 league (IPL and PSL owners snap up South Africa franchises) so you could say that it has some global footprint. We've had some big opening ceremonies featuring artists like Sean Paul and Shaggy (who knows who season 3 will invite?) And it has some regional following (Meet PSL’s Indian and Bangladeshi fans; India watched PSL final online more than any other country: report)
The main drawback would be the fact that till now, all PSL games have been held in the UAE excluding the 2017 Pakistan Super League Final. So revenue-wise, the other leagues may earn more due to home crowds. The third season is expected to finally bring most of the PSL to Pakistan, assuming security issues are managed, and a sixth franchise was announced under Multan Sultans. These developments would be a good step in terms of raising the PSL's future profile. Just my two cents. Mar4d (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Support for now Let's see what happens afterwards. I'm sure we can make a few changes to suit it better.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove: G20 summits

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 year's summit has received short shrift at ITNC so it's time we reviewed its place at ITNR given it was added by virtue of a discussion in 2011. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove if something notable comes from such dinner parties, we can add it via ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove - given the way this year's summit was handled, I see no reason to leave it on ITNR. As you correctly assert, anything really important can be suggested as a blurb at ITNC anyway. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove per nominator. If something notable happens it can be handled at ITN/C like with any other conference. I opposed the proposed blurb this year because it left we wondering "so what?" and nobody was able to come up with anything (until it ended a couple of days later, and even that was of disputed accuracy) other than "It's on ITN/R" which doesn't help readers in the slightest. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove since this doesn't prevent listing through ITNC, it just removes a free pass that is no longer warranted as Thryduulf has shown. BencherliteTalk 09:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove for reasons given above, not every G20 is something of interest. But I do wonder if we need something within INTR that is "Usually is posted if some interesting element happens", in the case of g20, some type of new agreement between all g20's or the like. I'm not sure how many other elements would be similar to this, but this would at least keep mention of g20 on this page, not as an ITNR but that we do watch for any interesting results to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Good idea. Such an "Events to watch for news stories" list would fit nicely with the upcoming ITN/R events that Fuebaey posts to WT:ITN every 3 months. The recently removed from ITN/R E3 expo would fit nicely on that list, as would I suspect several other major industry events and inter-government conferences. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would support remove as it stands now, absent some sort of formal list as Masem suggests. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to removal: why should it be removed? It is very notable, of high significance, of global nature, affects many worldwide and typically gets much press coverage. No reason to remove. If you don't like the summit or what comes out of them that wouldn't be reason to remove this from ITN/R. This is not some dinner party of some random people on random issues. --Fixuture (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    The fact that the merits are in dispute by many people is enough reason to remove this, and allow the usual ITNC process to determine if it is posted- or see below regarding Masem's idea. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    Only at some G20 summits does something significant happen. When something significant does happen, it can be nominated at ITNC and (subject to article quality) I will very likely support, but I don't think "they're meeting"/"they met" is ITN worthy on its own, which is all we had this time, so an automatic pass for notability is not warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal this annual gathering of heads of state generates copious media coverage. I don't see anything in WP:ITN#Purpose about featuring stories we think are important, but I do see something about featuring content people would be looking for because it's "In the news". This years G20 article wasn't up to MP quality, but that's no reason to strike it from ITN/R. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Not being ITNR does not prevent this from being nominated at ITNC. The ITNR list is indeed a list of events that have consensus that they merit posting every year through there mere occurrence; i.e. what "we think is important". ITN has never been intended to merely parrot the press and editorial judgement has always been a part of consensus. The fact that the merits of posting this every year are in dispute is enough reason for this to not be ITNR. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, it wasn't just quality that was concerning here, it was content and results of the summit, or lack of. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak remove - I don't have a strong opinion on this one, but it's probably fine to leave to ITN/C. Not every iteration produces anything of significance - those summits that do can be nominated and posted on their merits. The question then becomes whether similar arguments apply to the G8 as well... Modest Genius talk 10:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It has been over a week since the last comment in this thread so I believe it is ready for an uninvolved admin to assess the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2017 (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.

World Baseball Classic

The entry for the World Baseball Classic is suffixed by the odd note "or whatever form the tournament takes in years to come." I know almost nothing about the sport, but from reading the article it seems like this was very new when added to ITN/R but has since settled down and established its format. If that is correct I suggest removing the note. Significant changes seem not to be planned at this point, and if they do happen we should assess whether it still belongs on ITN/R at that time, not automatically assume it should regardless of the changes. In case the preceding is unclear, I am not proposing to remove the event from ITN/R (I think it should remain), just the note. I would just boldly do this, but I'm looking for a check from someone who follows the sport just to make sure I haven't misunderstood something. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Baseball editor here. You appear to be right in your assumption. That comment references Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_1#Baseball, which talks about the tournament being a one-time thing, because that short thread is from 2008, and the first WBC was held in 2006. It was indeed held again three years later, in 2009, and then they changed it to be every four years, so it was held again in 2013, and again in 2017. It's expected to be held again in 2021 though there is no definitive announcement of that, or decision to change it. I expect it will remain in existence, though I can't verify the next one will be in 2021 as opposed to a different year. Baseball is no longer an Olympic sport and it's a top priority of the Commissioner of Baseball to expand the game internationally. I think the comment can be dropped, and we can address what to do about the ITN/R item if it doesn't happen again in 2021, for whatever reason (changing schedule, cancellation, etc.). – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the footnote can be dropped. If the tournament changes then we can reassess. Modest Genius talk 11:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both, I've removed the note and added a link to this discussion as another reference for the item's inclusion on the list. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Womens sports

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and I don't feel that strongly about it, but what about a blanket addition of the women's edition of ITNR sports events (or the reverse if it exists). The two things driving this suggestion are:

  • ITN has a significant male bias and this might help fix it up a bit
  • sub-par articles still won't go up, I doubt we'll be inundated

Anyone have any thoughts? I don't feel strongly enough to defend this to the death, but it seemed reasonable to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that not all women top-tier events receive the same coverage, as male equivalents (partly due to general interest and viewership), so this should be decided on case-by-case basis, especially since we already have a good deal of ITNR sports. I think we can post those few events where men and women are roughly equal, such as Women's World Chess Championship. And there was a proposal to add Women's World Chess Championship to ITNR, for which I was sympathetic, but it failed. Brandmeistertalk 09:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
We have tended recently to post women's events when they occur at the same time and place(relatively) as a men's equivalent event.(Wimbeldon, for example) However, if the events occur at different times or different places(NCAA men's Division I tournament, vs. the women's) we judge each individually. I don't believe(could be wrong) we post the WNBA championship because it is far less popular than the NBA(rightfully or wrongly) and occurs at a different time. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion not too long back where it was decided that if men's and women's events happen at the same time and as part of the same event then both (or neither) are on ITN/R. Where the events are separate they are considered independently of each other. Imho this is the correct way to handle things. If you want to see more women's sports at ITN/R then your best bet is to nominate some specific events for inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove: Emmy Awards

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.

Once again, given demonstrable opposition to posting this in ITN/C, I am putting this up to be removed from ITN/R. It's entertainment industry navel-gazing, viewership is in steady decline, and the Emmys are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the on-demand age. Given the bar we set for ITN/R, there is no reason this should still be given automatic posting consideration.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
While we're at it, should this be removed, retroactively pull the current Emmy Awards listing on ITN as the primary reason given to support its posting was that it was ITN/R.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agnostic on the ITNR listing, Oppose pulling. Being on ITNR isn't a big deal to me (I generally give primacy to article quality in my assessments anyways) but the article was improved to the minimal standards of quality and update before posting. There's no compelling reason to remove it from the main page other than to enforce one's own perosnal view of what the world SHOULD find important (rather than relying on the evidence of what it DOES find important). --Jayron32 13:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As noted during the discussion, as long as the Emmys also are taking in on-demand shows as valid nominees, then they are keeping up with the times (comparatively, when the Emmys refused to include cable networks a decade+change ago, that was a problem, and the Academy was rightfully criticized for that, making them change their rules). The articles have generally be updated though I had to step in to fill in a description of the presentation, but that was not difficult, so it's not like a US Open (tennis) situation where no one is bothering to update.
    This does leave the question of if awards for American television should have ITN significance, and here's where it is tricky. I know Canada has an equivalent, and there's BAFTAS for the UK and I'm sure other nations have similar awards, so why just pick out the US? But we should recognize American television is a dominating media force compared to nearly all other nations. Recognizing the highest honors in that field at ITN seems completely reasonable. If anything I'd argue we should be including the British Academy Television Awards as ITNR as well as British shows also make a significant worldwide impact and so that we're not just limited to the television of one country. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'd have no problem with any similarly widely-viewed awards show also appearing on ITN, so long as the article is of sufficient quality. Media coverage is easy enough to verify, and beyond that, as long as we have a good article, we have met all the requirements (We have a quality article to show readers who have heard about a recent event elsewhere). --Jayron32 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    The only issue with the BAFTA television awards right now is the lack of any type of description of the events, compared to say our most recent Emmy one. It's clearly an aired show, there's 2+ hr on BBC with a host, so it would need to be handled as we expected from the Emmys. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If "entertainment industry navel-gazing" and declining viewership are reasons to pull this from ITNR then we might as well rid of The Oscars too. It's silly to suggest it's irrelevant in the on-demand age when an on-demand show, The Handmaid's Tale, has just walked away with the Outstanding Drama Series award.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The top recognition in the field which gets a decent amount of attention and wide interest. I too am open to other similar events from other countries if their importance and newsworthiness can be demonstrated. I think American TV is picked out because (rightfully or wrongly) it is a media force, as Masem states. Off the top of my head I think a good argument could be made for the BAFTAS. We also already have an Indian film award, don't know if they do a TV one. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This should specifically read as the Primetime Emmy Awards, to distinguish it from the Daytime Emmy Awards, Sports Emmy Awards, International Emmy Awards, or the other separate Emmys ceremonies. Note that many of the other Emmys ceremonies have similar category names. For example, the International Emmys also has categories for Best Comedy and Best Drama. I have thus changed it accordingly.[10] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove self-congratulatory awards that recognize the supposedly "top" TV shows in the US (VEEP!?!?!?). At least the Oscars have a foreign film category. This is a cliquish anachronism with a dwindling audience of no importance outside a dying industry. If the show is noteworthy, it can always be nominated on its own merits. Plus, where is the RfC that established this as an ITNR item? Didn't think so. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The industry is so near death that it picked a streaming only show as its best drama....... 331dot (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)s
@Medeis: If the lack of a formal RfC for adding it was problematic it would have been removed when it was discussed in 2013. It wasn't, so it has consensus to be on the list unless and until this discussion closes with consensus against. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is of interest to our readers, and we are not here to right great wrongs. Nothing has changed since the last RFC which re-affirmed its status as an ITNR entity. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above really. The largest awards ceremony for one of the largest entertainment industries. If you doubt the sway TV holds over Wikipedians, journey over to the Report more often. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2017 (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.

Application of ITN general requirements to ITNR

I wanted to clarify the application of ITN requirements to ITNR items:

1. ITNR items "have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion" for inclusion at ITN. In evaluating ITNC, "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another." Since we are only considering the quality and not significance of ITNR items, what is the standard for quality? Are we saying ITNR items have a very high level of significance and thus a low quality update would be acceptable? Or are we saying ITNR items have a "neutral" level of significance which will not bear weight on the quality requirement?
2. "Each ITN item contains an emboldened link to an article providing a substantial quantity of directly relevant information." In the case where it is difficult to identify a target article, we might use a table (see the Sakharov nom). In adding one line to a table, are we running contrary to "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient?" GCG (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
To me, quality is based on primarily on "long enough" and sufficient inline sourcing. There might be other issues like WP:PROSELINE or other things that can be edited to fix but not necessary due to a lack of information or sources that I would want to see improved, that unless were completely agregious, I would allow to pass on for posting to ITN.
The Sahkarov nom is an exception to the rule due to the nature of whom won that prize, and can stay as an unwritten rule per IAR . In general, for a singular prize or award, if there is a clear, obvious target (the person(s) or work that won it), then that is expected to be the target and thus improved. For multi-awards in a single nom, eg Oscars or Grammys, then the awards program article for that year should be of sufficient quality. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Elections when there is no clear winner

In view of the Jacinda Adern blurb right now, I propose to change the current section on ITNR to:

The results of the elections for head of state:
 *In those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where the head of state is an elected position
 *Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included
[text below]

"Unless there is no clear winner in the election, in which case the formation of a government is the ITNR item". Banedon (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but this proposal wouldn't have affected the NZ election since Ardern isn't a head of state. (I've always thought that the "only heads of state" rule is ridiculous—I guarantee more people care about Angela Merkel than care about Frank-Walter Steinmeier—but it's what we have.) I don't think "don't post the election, post the formation of the government" would be workable, despite superficial appeal; in multiparty democracies the formation of a government can take months (or in some cases years), and "wait for formation of a government" would mean a constant stream of people complaining that Wikipedia was ignoring their country's election. A rule like "post the result of elections, and post the outcome of coalition talks if and only if it results in a change of government" would probably be just about workable. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Iridescent is on the right track, "the results of general elections, including the outcome of coalition talks if and only if they differ from the election outcome"; but I'm unsure we need to write this down. The system worked with NZ; we debated it, and it was posted. This isn't a terribly common occurrence. However, I won't stand in the way of writing it down if that is what is desired. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Iridescent is on the right track, the NZ election was a general election and not an election for the head of state. I think 331dot is also the right track. I believe that ITN should continue to post the results of elections for both (1) heads of state and (2) general elections. I'm a bit confused by 331dot's wording of "the outcome of coalition talks if and only if they differ from the election outcome". Election outcomes are different/separate from coalition talks, so by definition they will differ. Chrisclear (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Typically the party that wins the most seats in the election is in the coalition government, so the outcome of the coalition talks would not differ from the expected outcome of the election. It is unusual for the losing parties (none of which got the most seats) to come together with a coalition of their own to overtake the party that won the most seats. That's what I'm referring to. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an ITNR question however. Do we really want the general elections to be ITNR, and then the formation of a coalition to also be ITNR? Banedon (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I think there is room for both elections to be ITNR and the formation of coalitions where the party with the most seats isn't in the government to be as well. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Is the formation of a coalition ITN/R though? If English had formed the government then I would have been very surprised if a nomination would receive much, if any, support. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Since there are no objections I'm going to amend the relevant section. Banedon (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
    Yet no support at all, and only a couple of days of discussion, and an unclear proposal to start with. I'd leave it alone for now please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Elections are recurring, but disputed elections are not and probably need to be handled case-by-case. pbp 23:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The process worked well enough this time. Whether we post the formation of a coalition should not be decided by ITN/R, but by discussion and consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't see value added by having extra ITN/R items here. The processes are too complicated and varied to be adequately summarised in a one-line rule. Hashing it out on ITN/C seemed to work OK for the NZ case. --LukeSurl t c 08:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should be too prescriptive about this; better to avoid instruction creep. This hasn't really been a problem in the past, and is a rare situation anyway. We can always post the election results and then update the blurb with the government formation if it's a few days later. In the vast majority of cases the government is clear by the time the article has been sufficiently updated to merit posting. If coalition agreement takes longer, a new blurb could be considered on its own merits. Neither of those require any additional wording on ITNR. Modest Genius talk 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hard cases make bad law. We don't need to rewrite a policy every time a case comes along that doesn't fit into what we've already written. We nominate some article. We discuss if the article is good enough and what blurb to use to highlight it. We post the agreed upon blurb. It doesn't need to be that complicated, and we don't need to write into policy every sui generis discussion we have when we get some newsworthy event that doesn't fit into a neat category. --Jayron32 15:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with the points here, but we needn't be so deferential to precedent on ITN/R. This things didn't come down from Mt. Sinai; some of them had a consensus of two whole people. If it's better to use general election or heads of state or heads of government or (ahem) the people that actually run the country, use what works best, precedent be damned. Every nom for ITN/R changes is greeted with "the old way has served us well." I feel like I wandered into The Lottery.GCG (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove Dakar Rally

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.

Propose the removal of the Dakar Rally from the Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Motorsport. Simply put, this is not a particularly noteworthy event any more. The primary event in rallying is the World Rally Championship which is already ITNR and gives the sport due weight in the ITN rotation. As far as I can recall, we haven't actually posted this for several years (due to lack of nominations/inadequate articles). As there are multiple winners in the different vehicle classes it is unclear how a blurb would be constructed. --LukeSurl t c 11:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove. I can't recall this being posted before either. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove ditto to 331dot. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove I don't generally get involved in ITN/R discussions but this is an absolute no-brainer. It was once a genuine showpiece event, but since the move to Argentina it's an irrelevance even to most fans of the sport. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove - redundant as it never gets posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2017 (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.