Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10

Before being added at ITNR: Try ITN/C first

There are several suggestions here (and quite a few at the ITNR list per se) that have not been suggested at ITN/C. As what I've said before, any ITNR event has to go through the normal ITN/C procedure and be posted at least twice (except probably for quadrennial events) before being added to the list. This talk page must be on a few watchlists and an ITN/C exposure should be mandatory before being listed here. (Yes this includes my own suggestions too.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with that. Nightw 06:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable in the future, but any currently listed stuff should be added anyway if a consensus is found - we've found the informal criteria we've used before are rather poor IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

States of emergency

This was discussed at WP:ITNC originally when the Algerian state of emergency change was posted with (at that time) only one support and no opposes. Subsequently three editors voiced their support and an opinion that this should be added to ITNR [1]. Candlewicke (talk · contribs) then did so, but there are proposals on this page with more support for adding to ITNR than that did, so I've reverted as I think it's only fair that it at least has its merits discussed here on this talk page like every other item proposed above. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 11:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. They're fairly few and far between. Nightw 11:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Question: Are we going to list when a state of emergency is declared, is lifted or both? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Both. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The reason I asked is, as MG pointed out below, most states of emergency usually end a week after it is declared. (Exceptions are the states of emergency in Algeria and in Taiwan that ended decades after it was declared.) How about restricting it to states of emergency due to political disturbances? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point, if the state of emergency doesn't last very long (say under 2 months) then only the initial declaration should be posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, since these can be handled on a case-by-case basis. We don't have to post every time there's a minor disaster in a small country which results in a state of emergency being declared. And if the state of emergency only lasts a week, there's no way we should be posting it twice. Besides, the term itself does not have any fixed meaning. Modest Genius talk 17:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of CONCACAF Gold Cup or OFC Nations Cup

Is there a reason the CONCACAF Gold Cup and OFC Nations Cup are omitted while the UEFA European Football Championship, Copa America, African Cup of Nations and AFC Asian Cup are included? I tried looking through the archive but I couldn't find the discussion on adding the Football Continental Championships. (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the size of the competition and quality of the teams in those two tend to be lower than the rest. I'm convinced that if proposed at ITNC as standalones they'd be no-consensus, maybe roughly 50–50 to post, let alone for ITNR. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 01:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
So I did some research about when things were added. On 14 April 2008 the Copa Libertadores, Copa America, and ACON were added without apparent discussion. The Champions League and UEFA European Football Championship were already included. On 7 May 2009 the AFC Asian Cup was added again without discussion. The CONCACAF Gold Cup was added 11 May 2009 with the edit summary "If the other confederations go up, then surely the CONCACAF one does too.". At this point only the OFC Nations Cup is not included. On 29 July 2009 the CONCACAF Gold Cup was removed with the edit summary "byeeeeeeee Copa de Oro" referencing an unrelated defunct competition.
It's silly to include a single nation of 50 million's competition like the BPL and omit an international competition with a dozen nations spread over two continents and represents ten times the population (~500 million) like the Gold Cup. (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Though the Premier League is followed worldwide, so its not exactly of interest only in Britain. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons to the Premier League aside, I support the Concacaf Gold Cup as we already have the Europe, S American, Asia, and Africa championships already on. The nomination would still have to meet the update requirement, and I"d note that the article on the 2009 competition does not have enough prose text.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize

pretty bgi award in the literary world, dont see why it shoudltn be itnr(Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)).

I support it's addition, with the Pulitzer for fiction as the main headline item. It is the highest literary award Americans are eligible for besides the Nobel. It makes a good comlipent to the Man Booker prize, which is for other English speaking nations.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't the Pulizer journalism awards generally get more attention than the literature awards? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's tricky because the journalism awards are certainly given more attention by journalists, but yeah, I'd broadly agree. However, the Pulitzer is also the US's most prestigious literary award, and IMO that's a bit more appropriate for the front page, though we can link to the rest of the Pulitzers in the blurb. Regarding the journalism awards, I'm not sure what single award to highlight as the headline item, whereas the fiction award is a fairly obvious choice on the literary side.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding stuff that is on the front pages in multiple continents

Given quite often when something major happens e.g. the engagement of William and Kate or the India vs Pakistan cricket match, that clearly transcends normal standards and is clearly a very major story then we seem to have a very long argument about posting it.

Only the very biggest stories make the front pages of serious newspapers and other clear reliable sources on multiple continents, and so I'm going to say that they have to make the front pages of a news source in three different continents to qualify.

To quantify I'm saying that they have to be clearly visible at standard resolution (usually taken as 1024x768) in the news sources on three continents. But then we should post the story per ITNR.

We have to post stories that are much much less important than stories like this every day - and allowing opposes for the biggest stories makes ITN have a poor atmosphere and makes it far too easy to oppose the other lesser stories which we have to post so that we are able to have a section at all. Additionally if we don't post the biggest stories we aren't for-filling our purpose "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not what ITNR is for. ITNR lists recurring events, not inclusion criteria. Even ignoring that, there are all sorts of other problems: How many such sources would be needed? What fraction? What counts as a 'serious newspaper'? Does a small text-only link count? Which edition of the website? (many publishers, including the BBC, tailor their indexes based on IP geolocation) How long would the story have to be up for - does 20 minutes at 3am local time count? And that's before I even consider the actual desirability of such a rule, which I would dispute. But even if we did want it, it would be utterly unworkable, and ITNR would certainly not be the place to implement it. Modest Genius talk 22:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Modest Genius. The idea is neither desirable nor feasible, and even if it were, WP:ITN/R wouldn't be the appropriate location. —David Levy 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And constantly arguing about major stories is productive how? Posting minor stories is always much easier than posting major stories which have made the front pages worldwide. Its ridiculous.
If needed to get something I'm happy to restrict it to the top story only - as that's usually pretty clear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it easier for the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final to be added than the Super Bowl? Turns out, the answer is yes, which frankly is, idiotic. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Quite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
As I noted in the Super Bowl discussion, debating events listed at WP:ITN/R as they arise is pointless at best and disruptive at worst. —David Levy 05:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The page's purpose is to list recurring events for which consensus for ITN inclusion has been established (provided that the requisite article update occurs). It is not a backdoor means of bypassing the consensus process to force through controversial items.
As was pointed out in the discussion that likely triggered your proposal, a story's presence on "front pages worldwide" doesn't automatically make it ITN-eligible. The Lindsay Lohan saga (also mentioned in that discussion) is a good example. —David Levy 05:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
While it may have been on the front page it wasn't the top story though.
Additionally I think that while the Lohan story is celebrity gossip (and not something I am personally interested in), it is probably of wide interest to our readers, so I don't think there would be particularly great harm if we posted it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
As Modest Genius noted, there's no reliable means of identifying a "top" story. And even if there were, there's no reason to assume that it warrants an ITN item.
Again, the page's purpose is to list recurring events for which consensus for ITN inclusion has been established. A "top" news story isn't a recurrence in any meaningful sense, nor is there consensus that it automatically qualifies for ITN inclusion.
That "there [wouldn't] be particularly great harm" to post something isn't valid justification for taking the decision out of the community's hands. The page's basis is "we've already established consensus, and there will be no material difference in future instances, so there's no need to rehash the debate every time," not "we have difficulty establishing consensus, so let's bypass the process and include the items anyway." —David Levy 17:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion does need to be had somewhere, maybe WT:ITN would have been better - and this is pointed out from there - as to why its so difficult to post major stories compared to minor ones. What HTD points out a little further down is ridiculous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there's a problem. I disagree that this is a solution. —David Levy 18:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For interests sake, Barack Obama's page views have gone from about 30k to 65k a day over the past two days, and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has gone from 10k/day to about 45k/day over the past few days, PlayStation Network outage has seen about 40k hits a day on the 28th, Palestine went up to 12.5k hits a day, Syria went up to 23k hits a day and the Tornado's went up to 45k hits a day, Sathya Sai Baba's hits peaked at 260k and Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu's hits peaked at 32k. So I was wrong to claim that Obama was bigger than the other stories on ITN, but that article was not less significant than the other events posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And actually Lindsay Lohan only went up from a usual ~10k hits/day to 30k hits, which is less than the stories we posted this week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The LiLo article should've gone up to at least ~100k hits (or even twice as high as 30k, which was surprisingly low) anyway before it gets an ITN spot for me, considering the nature of story. (An example of this would be Jamie Lynn Spears' announcement that she was pregnant. The JLS article shot up to 200k views, at par w/ FIFA World Cup stats.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that seems a reasonable hit count for the type of event. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I was sorta setting a higher standard for hit counts on "tabloidal" items... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that's definitely a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Poltical summits

G7/G8 seems to be listed despite rapidly declining importance, its odd g20 is not. Far more important.

And while were on that vein, BRICS summits are those of the largest emerging markets and trhus pertinent. that should be ITNR just the same.Lihaas (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Meh. I'd say just be bold and add them. Nightw 23:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologize but I have removed them. I feel that a consensus should be reached before adding items to ITNR, because being on ITNR means precisely that such events have consensus. I'm not opposing or supporting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
We did have consensus. iof people are not interested then consensus cant wait forever. Unless you oppose then that different.(Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)).
I'd support this if this was after the summit when they produced something like the Bangkok Declaration. I'd strongly oppose posting t the start. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Keep per WP:SNOW -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This sticks out in the Cricket list, it has very little significance outside of India now (if it ever did), most non-Indian players see it as a retirement fund and it should be removed from the Recurring items list. Mtking (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

we posted ncaa basketball for crying out loud. or is significance outside host country only a criteria for non-US sports? -- Ashish-g55 04:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Other stuff exists is not a valid argument, and please correct me if I am wrong I can't see "ncaa basketball" listed on this page. Mtking (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Unproductive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You post rubbish on the ITN page, then come here. Grow up and discuss the issue properly back where it started. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yet more WP:NPA - I see this as exactly the place top have this discussion. Mtking (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Where's the personal attack? It's incivility at worst, but there's nothing that actually attacks you the person. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 05:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ec} Calling my post's dumb and rubbish is an attack on me. Mtking (talk) 3:12 pm, Today (UTC+10)
No it's not. He's commenting on the content of your posts, not you as a person. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 05:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There has already been considerable discussion of the matter that concerns you on the ITN page. To come here without participating properly in the discussion on the main ITN page is not a polite tactic. You are trying to avoid a discussion already underway. Do you intend to invite all participants in the other discussion to come here? Having made their points over there, they shouldn't really have to, but we will test to see if you do have manners. Since you have already demonstrated that you cannot tell the difference between a personal attack and a valid criticism of a post, I see little point in continuing this discussion HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this seems like forum shopping. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 05:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I am not trying to get round the discussion on this years entry, or forum shopping just fixing the problem for next year. Mtking (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how this is forum shopping, this is In the news/Recurring items, questions about topics on the list belong here. In fact, another editor who had the same opinion (on the same topic) was told to come here. I don't care one way or another, but it'd be nice to see a little more civility. RxS (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Unproductive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Civility includes acknowledging the sensible points others have made in a discussion, and not just ignoring the lot and proceeding as if they haven't even said anything at all, as Mtking did on the ITN page. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It also includes not calling what other people say pointless and dumb. That doesn't do anyone any good...and it reduces the chances of any meaningful discussion. If you think he's wrong, let him be wrong. And in any case, this is specifically the right page to come to with questions about recurring items. Sections get rotated off the candidates page too often for general discussions. RxS (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't a matter of him being wrong. Mtking was already failing to engage in meaningful discussion. THAT'S what I was trying to stop. And to run off and initiate a conversation here (whether that's the right thing to do or not) without saying he was doing so on the ITN page is also very poor manners, since there had already been several contributions there by others who would no doubt have an interest in contributing here. Most of you are probably unaware that he also attacked me on my Talk page. This guy has behaved very poorly. I find it very difficult to feel any sympathy for his point of view. (And now yours.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hilo, calling another editor's post 'dumb' is poor manners.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't get it! It was a response to someone else ignoring others' posts. THAT was the poor manners. It WAS dumb. You should condemn the bad behaviour that came first. I know that this direct approach bothers some of you, but sometimes bluntness is appropriate. In the interest of the niceness that you seem to seek, I shall stop now and let my existing posts tell the story. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is the most significant professional cricket league in the world. Even if it's primarily significant in India, that's 1 billion people. It features world famous cricketers from around the world, many who feature on their national sides. It is the second highest paid league in the world.[2] Plus, it simply is a very unique league and highly notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment this seems like the correct venue for the discussion, and the comments above are really quite rude. Hatting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as its a significant league which attracts large numbers of readers, the main IPL article has attracted 200k hits a month during the league itself. India may only be one country, but its of interest in the rest of South Asia too I'm sure, and Australians play in the league. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Its loud and annoying but is nevertheless noteworthy - and it will get louder and more annoying as the years go by and soon this discussion wont be needed because someone will already be screaming "Kochi Tuskers are the best-est! We are the win this year!" into your ears. But that is still hypothetical - so here are a few reasons for why the IPL is important as of today:
1. Largest professional cricket league in the world (in terms of revenue, fan following and viewership).
2. In terms of player participation, top players from all national teams (except for Pakistan for obvious reasons) participate in the IPL - I cant think of a single key player of current times who hasnt made himself available for the IPL (even Lara came out of retirement and made himself available for the IPL auction), Players have in fact retired from their national side to play for in the IPL - Malinga (agree that this is not the norm, but this has started to happen) - In fact, the ICC is considering a separate time slot for the IPL so that there is no such conflict. (I know its not decided yet - but to even consider stopping all international cricket everywhere for a domestic league shows how important this is)/
3. The money - the league is valued at $4.13 billion. Second highest paid league of any sport in the world; the prize money for the cricket world cup is lower than that of IPL.
4. Wide interest and coverage in India. This is significant in itself - a large chunk of the money and viewership for cricket is, whether you like it or not, in India. IPL was not the first T20 league - but then why is it the single biggest league since its very first year? The viewership and consequently, the money.
5. Wide interest and coverage outside India. IPL is broadcasted live and IPL results are reported by mainstream news in almost all cricket playing nations. ITV4 had record viwership while broadcasting IPL. I concede up front that test/ODI matches involving the concerned country would receive more publicity but this remains the only domestic league with significant coverage in other countries.
I am yet to see a reason against it other than "its only a domestic league". We post the NBA since its a significant professional league in Basketball although its domestic. Players from other countries join domestic teams (in fact foreign participation in IPL is more). It is broadcast around the world in countries where the sport is relevant. I fail to see a difference between the two other than countries involved and I hope you wont hold that against IPL. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose removal. The top domestic league of cricket, a sport that is popular enough to have its world championship to be called the 2nd largest sporting event. As I've said earlier, I suspect the guys from WP:CRIC are the ones opposing this and I can't see why -- this is publicity for their WikiProject. Although I'm quite concerned with the low page view stats for the season articles, the 2011 NBA Playoffs has higher page views (and I'm excited to see how the ITN/C discussion would evolve in that one). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose removal. this is one of the Top cricket tournament in the world today which many top cricketers from around the world play. that it is of interest to/ watched by a huge chunk of humanity is another reason that this needs to stay on ITNR. In many cricketing countries cricket is not just a sport. It is a religion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cricket is big in India. Obviously. And it's the biggest English-speaking country in the world. This being enwiki, I'd say it's fairly significant. Nightw 20:39, 31 May 2011 (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.

Remove Gaelic football from ITNR

This sport is only considered significant by the Irish, and there can't be more than 10 million people who even identify as Irish worldwide. Noone would seriously consider posting the S.League and there are more Singaporeans than people living in Ireland - and the vast majority of them also speak English. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I originally removed this from ITNR, as I've seen multiple discussions using Gaelic football as a punch line, and I think that proves it is no longer "considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN." David Levy stated that "There is consensus—long predating this page—to include the premier championship[s] of every major sport.", but I believe this is no longer the case. I support Gaelic football's removal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Support its removal, I refute the claim that there's consensus to include the premier championship of every major sport, and anyway who's to say what is a "major sport"? StrPby (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Gaelic football is "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland." By no reasonable definition can that not constitute a "major sport." —David Levy 06:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps one that has appeal to more than one country with only ~six million people, not all of whom are interested in the sport? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The idea behind the aforementioned agreement was to forgo intensive analysis (and inevitable bickering) in favor of broad inclusiveness, thereby encouraging encyclopedic expansion instead of partisan debate. We used the qualifier "major" to avoid lumping in such events as the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest and World Series of Rock-Paper-Scissors. It certainly is possible for something to be borderline, but the premier championship of a sport among a country's most popular doesn't approach a hypothetical cut-off point consistent with what we had in mind.
If you believe that there no longer is consensus for this agreement, that's what should be discussed. —David Levy 08:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. To the best of my recollection, our agreement to include the premier championship[s] of every major sport (provided that the requisite article update occurs, which often isn't the case) has stood unchallenged since 2006 (until now, that is). I'm baffled by the notion that Gaelic football—one of seven football codes listed—should be singled out for exclusion.
S.League is an association football league. We list nine events for that sport (compared to one for Gaelic football). By the population-based logic employed above, the MLS Cup would be fifteen times more noteworthy than the AFL Grand Final. —David Levy 06:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to nominate the others, go ahead – but let's debate the merits of this particular event, shall we? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Nominate what others? —David Levy 08:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason its being singled out for exclusion is that its the least significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Gaelic football probably is the least popular of the seven football codes listed, but as "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland," it easily qualifies as a major sport. I don't understand why some editors seem to regard it as comparable in significance to Austus. —David Levy 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per User:David Levy as it is the highest level of the sport as required by the longstanding consensus - if it is felt that this consensus no longer exists then that surely is what should be discussed. As he points out, the premier level is a key difference making the S-League comparison invalid. Just as a point of fact,the competition does actually involve more than one country with the participation of not only teams from the republic of Ireland but also six Northern Ireland teams, and London and New York, although the latter two do not have large support bases. Tameamseo (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of this discussion is that we don't think Gaelic football is a worthy sport to include. Trying to claim that this isn't what this discussion is about is rather disingenuous.
And obviously there are going to be teams in Northern Ireland - that the two outside of the island of Ireland don't have "large support bases" kinda proves the point that this isn't significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
1. You appear to have misread/misinterpreted Tameamseo's comments regarding the discussion's nature. His/her point (which echoes mine) is that it should focus on the broader issue of whether to continue including the premier championship[s] of every major sport (provided that the requisite article update occurs) instead of ignoring this longstanding consensus or taking for granted that it no longer exists.
2. Since when does the lack of a large support base outside its region of origin prove that a sport is insignificant? Does that not apply to Australian rules football and Canadian football as well? —David Levy 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
...and American football? HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The Japanese didn't care enough they made an anime about it. They're also the best rugby team in Asia bit I'd still have to see an anime/manga about rugby. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
David, can you link to the discussion where the 'major sport' agreement was made? This rule is referenced a lot at ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to find it. —David Levy 17:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm still searching. I'm almost positive that the discussion occurred in 2006. So far, I've only seen mentions of the resultant consensus (which, as you noted, are frequent).
Regardless, we should determine whether said consensus still exists. I believe that the agreement has served us well, but it isn't set in stone. —David Levy 17:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
To my tremendous frustration, I can't seem to track down the original discussion (so anyone reading this is welcome to conclude that it's a figment of my imagination).
It doesn't really matter, as we aren't bound by a decision made in 2006 anyway. However, irrespective of its origins, we've consistently applied this non-exclusive criterion since then. Consensus can change, but I've seen no evidence that it has in this instance (and the fact that the standard frequently is cited would seem to suggest otherwise).
Either way, this is what we should be discussing. If the practice lacks consensus, let's abandon it and go from there. Until such time, this proposal is premature. —David Levy 19:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
keep per globalizae requitements and avoidning pov(Lihaas (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)).

What is a major sport?

^^ –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know precisely where to draw the line, but I'm quite certain that "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland" easily crosses it. —David Levy 04:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is the "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland" listed in ITNR while "the popular spectator sports in Indonesia", a country probably a thousand times larger than Ireland, isn't listed? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a good question. To what sport are you referring? —David Levy 05:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The sport is immaterial. If we're going to add a blurb about "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland" while we dismiss "the popular spectator sport in Indonesia" then something is terribly wrong. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree (assuming that your description is accurate). Please specify the sport in question so we can work to rectify this omission. —David Levy 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well it is football (soccer), but that's the point. Just lately there had been a deluge of soccer articles so this one won't get posted. See Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 3#Football (soccer) 2. It's tragic enough that we include "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland" because it is a sport that only they themselves play (and don't bring American football into this mess: the Japanese and that "I keek a touchdown" dude play that too), and exclude "the popular spectator sport in Indonesia" because everybody else plays it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so your persistent claim that we exclude "the popular spectator sport in Indonesia" is false.
It's important to keep in mind that the aforementioned consensus to include the premier championship[s] of every major sport is non-exclusive; if another event from that sport is deemed sufficiently noteworthy, it can be listed at WP:ITN/R too (hence the inclusion of nine association football championships). Further, an event not listed at WP:ITN/R still can receive an ITN item if consensus is reached at WP:ITN/C. —David Levy 05:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that the rapture happening on May 21 had a higher chance of happening than "the most popular spectator sport in Indonesia" being added at ITN, right?
Which brings me to... how is "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland" easily crosses ITNR's threshold? There isn't any criteria on the ITNR page per se, so how did you come up with "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland" getting in. Are we going to punish Indonesians if their most popular spectator sport is the same with that of England? How did the exclusion of "the most popular spectator sport in Indonesia" became false?
So let's ditch football (soccer). Let's try kabaddi, "the most popular spectator sport in Bangladesh". This identical with Gaelic sports (which has TWO ITNR events!) situation in which it is only popular in one country. Let's say I made a sufficient update for whatever is the highest level tournament of that sport. Would that be added? No. Don't give me the argument to try that on ITN/C. It. Won't. Be. Added.
Anyway, 2010–11 Indonesia Super League is about to end, so we can see the absurdity of the situation when I nominate this and produce a GA-worthy update lol. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There isn't any criteria on the ITNR page per se, so how did you come up with "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland" getting in.
Why are you bypassing a step? I've plainly stated that the community agreed to include the premier championship[s] of every major sport. You asked what "major sport" means, and while we have no precise definition, I cited my belief that no sensible one could exclude "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland" (a phrase quoted directly from our Gaelic football article).
You then invented the fiction that we've excluded "the most popular spectator sport in Indonesia" (around which you place quotation marks, despite the fact that you don't appear to be quoting anyone/anything) and subsequently acknowledged that said sport is association football (for which we list nine events).
The truth is that we list no association football matches regularly contested in Indonesia (though the FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup certainly could be held there at some point), which is entirely different from the fictitious scenario in which we list no events from the sport itself.
My point is not that an WP:ITN/C nomination of an Indonesian football match realistically would succeed (barring the existence of an extraordinary circumstance, such deadly rioting). My point is that neither the "premier championship[s] of every major sport" provision nor the WP:ITN/R page itself is preventing any event's main page appearance. Rightly or wrongly, the community has determined that no Indonesian football matches are worthy of inclusion. I neither condemn nor condone this (and don't regard myself as knowledgeable enough to take an informed position).
But what of the association football fans in Indonesia? Your point, as I understand it, is that they greatly outnumber the Gaelic football fans in Ireland (and by extension, the world), so how is it fair that their championship matches be excluded? Perhaps you're right. Maybe the community is wrong to do so. But your attempt to remove the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship is predicated on the theory that two wrongs make a right.
As it stands, the assortment of sporting events listed at WP:ITN/R is intended to include the most significant events from each sport (not from each country), thereby accommodating fans of the sports themselves (and anyone else interested in the top events' results). Within the sport of association football, there is no event of greater significance than the FIFA World Cup, and we currently list eight other championships that the community has deemed sufficiently significant (and more significant than any regularly held in Indonesia). Within the sport of Gaelic football, there is no event of greater significance than the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, and the community hasn't deemed any other championships sufficiently significant. And yes, the Kabaddi World Cup presumably belongs as well.
If you perceive this system to be broken, it's entirely reasonable to propose that it be replaced (perhaps with one based on events' significance within their respective countries instead of their respective sports). Attempting to remove an item that clearly qualifies (apparently as a means of compensating for other items' omission, which you regard as unjust) won't address the actual problem, assuming that one exists. —David Levy 10:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
David, I know you're not into sports, but I'd like to point out that Gaelic football is only one of two of the Gaelic games at ITNR, the other being hurling. That means we have 2 ITNR events for Gaelic games. These are necessarily one "sport" as there is only one organizing body for both events: the GAA. So yeah, we did not exclude the "the most popular spectator sport in Indonesia," but we probably excluded 90% of the "the most popular spectator sport in Indonesia" (I'm not privy to ISL ratings vis-a-vis with the Premier League which is also very popular there).
I guess the question would be, how did GAA easily become a "major sport"? Unlike say American football, it doesn't have an international governing body, unless GAA per se is the governing body, which further reinforces my point. Unlike kabaddi, there doesn't have to be a competition among national teams (New York GAA doesn't count). Unlike bandy, it doesn't have a world championship. Sure it's massive at Ireland, but at that context, it is a sporting league, not necessarily a sport. You'd compare with the GAA events with events organized by the English Football Association, not by FIFA.
So, if we're looking at this, GAA is an sport organizing body at par with the FA; hence we'd compare events organized by the GAA not at par with the likes of "world" championship events, but by locally organized annual sporting events. Hence, it's rightful to compare GAA-organized events, Gaelic football and hurling, with such leagues such as the Indonesian Super League, the Super Bowl, etc.
Also, it is indisputable that GAA-organized events in Ireland are the premier championships of Gaelic games, precisely because no one else plays the sport elsewhere! Unless someone corrects me, there's no national championship of either Gaelic football or hurling outside of Ireland. Sure you can probably say so for American football, unless you dismiss these Japanese people who watched their national American football championship at the Tokyo Dome. The Super Bowl is reported extensively, even in countries where American football is not popular or is even despised, and it's not even restricted to Anglophone countries.. I can't say the same for any of the Gaelic games events. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Your assertion that Gaelic football and hurling constitute a single sport (because they happen to fall under the auspices of the GAA, which also promotes camogie, handball, rounders, Irish music and dance, and the Irish language) is both absurd and irrelevant. This conversation has become quite tiresome. —David Levy 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
GAA is the governing body of hurling and Gaelic football. So they're one "sport." Just as ICC handles all of the cricket variations. I dunno how it's that hard to swallow. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It's downright nonsensical. While Gaelic football and hurling have major elements in common, they clearly aren't one and the same.
As noted above, the GAA also promotes camogie (which actually is almost identical to hurling), Gaelic handball, rounders, Irish music and dance, and the Irish language. By your logic, all of these form a single "sport." Likewise, if FIFA and FIBA were to merge, association football and basketball suddenly would become a single "sport."
Regardless, I don't see how any of this is relevant. Even if Gaelic football and hurling were a single sport, what bearing would that have on the matter at hand? —David Levy 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
(Reindent): I was reexamining Wikipedia:In the news#Criteria since this will ultimately be the basis for events listed here. ITNR events are just like ITN/C events, only that they are recurring, and discussing from scratch every time the event happens is wasteful. So that means, aside from "minority topics" each ITNR event should have the same (not less, not more) criteria as regular ITN/C events.
Now reading that page, it absolutely fails to tell us what an article should be about (not be like). This is unlike FA ot DYK, and like OTD, where any article has a chance of being passed. Here, there are some topics which shouldn't be included. The criteria section fails to tell us what are those articles. It tells us the old system and how t failed, but it failed to give us a replacement; interestingly, the death criteria has something concrete on what an article should be about to have a chance. Sure, like FA and DYK you'd have to have brilliant prose and a new article with more 1.5k characters or a 5x expansion, respectively, ITN has a minimum update requirement, which is all good.
Without stating what topics ITN items should be about, we'd have countless arguments such as this. "Gaelic football easily passes ITNR criteria." Sure. According to what criteria? Says who? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Asked and answered. Continually pretending otherwise doesn't change that. —David Levy 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes. There's no definition, hence you guys choose. Sweet.
BTW, I haven't moved to remove Gaelic sports in this discussion: I asked what a "major sport" is, and if there's a chance a "major sport" held in Indonesia has any chance, comparing them to the GAA. Well at least that was my original intent...
So why is it no sensible inclusion of a "major sport" could exclude "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland"? This your reasoning, and I would like to know why. I think this hasn't been answered. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
1. You initiated this discussion as a subsection of one titled "Remove Gaelic football from ITNR," and you certainly seem to object to its inclusion.
2. Any definition of "major sport" (including the one that you propose below) is inherently subjective. I've explained that I have no specific line in mind, but I know that if I were to draw one, "one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland" would land firmly on the "major" side. You're entitled to disagree, but please stop acting as though I haven't addressed this point. —David Levy 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition of a "major sport"

"For purposes of inclusion at ITNR, a sporting event is considered to be a "major sport" if it follows nos. 1 and either no. 2.1 or no. 2.2 of the following criteria:
  1. Its governing body is a member of the International Olympic Committee, and has national federations from 6 continents.
  2. One of the following is satisfied:
    1. Holds its world championship, and the latest tournament had member nations coming from at least 3 different continents or has held its world championship in at least three or more continents, or
    2. Holds a national championship that is widely covered by the media of the host country, and has marginal coverage elsewhere.
Other sports may be included at ITN but should go through ITN/C."

Of course everyone can fine-tune this. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Football is included on ITNR, we have lots of football stories there. Just because none of them directly tie to Indonesia doesn't mean anything needs to change. 2) Why do we need to define 'major sport' anyway? Items are judged on a case-by-case basis when nominated on ITN/C, and on this talk page when discussed for inclusion on ITNR. Are you proposing that we replace all the sports stories on ITNR with some kind of catch-all criteria such as those you list above? If not, why does there need to be a definition? If you *are* suggesting that, it's a terrible idea. Modest Genius talk 16:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's ditch Indonesians not caring about the football at ITNR except for the Premier League, and the two Gaelic games events. I apologize if the discussion veered off-course. The point was to create a definition of "major sport," as currently, there is no definition, and the current situation of the inclusion of what a major sport is simply not worthy to be called "major."
People still have to suggest things here at ITNR -- it's not as if a sporting event is within the bounds of this suggestion it should be automatically included: we'd still use our discretion, although if it doesn't meet any agreed-upon (if) I dunno what should happen. ITNR and ITNC events have the same criteria: the only difference is that the ITNR events are recurring and it'll be a waste if every time the event crops up we'd have to restart the discussion from scratch. We'd only define what a major sport is, since it is used as a matter of inclusion to lists here. Currently, we have no definition -- the death criteria is better since we have at least the vaguest idea on how to deal with deaths. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. Clarifying what a major sport is is useful in itself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Modest Genius. This is an ill-advised solution in search of a problem. —David Levy 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Your proposed bureaucracy won't solve anything. What qualifies as "wide coverage"? Users would need to subjectively decide for themselves, unless you intend to draft specific criteria for its measurement (e.g. calculating the number and length of on-air and written reports), which still would rely upon arbitrary cutoffs. It's far simpler and more practical to simply leave the decision of what constitutes a "major sport" to consensus (in the few borderline cases). —David Levy 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Surely having some definition is better than having no definition at all. You could make that argument for getting rid of the death criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
But when would such a definition be useful? It's not something we ever have to assess - that term doesn't appear in any of the criteria anywhere. Modest Genius talk 21:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
When deciding which sports are worthy of inclusion in ITNR, and as a useful aid to looking through sports postings on WP:ITNC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
But those are subjective decisions, so there's really no need for a Boolean definition of a 'major sport'. Contributors can assess whether to add things to ITNR and whether to post at ITNC without the aid of such an arbitrary and discrete criterion. Modest Genius talk 22:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think having some more criteria would help people to make consistent decisions. Having some sort of criteria as to what makes a major sport would be useful - especially as its used so frequently to justify the inclusion of items. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort here and think we're on the right track, I don't know if this is the best wording. No. 1, sports aren't members of the IOC; people are. Perhaps what we mean is sports that are in the Olympics, but that includes stuff as obscure as modern pentathlon and trampolining. Criterion 2A would encompass korfball, futsal and wheelchair rugby, a.k.a. murderball. Criterion 2B would allow curling and hurling. So I don't know if this is the best way to go about it. Rather than trying to define what is a "major sport," I think we should look at sporting events individually based on factors like:
  • TV ratings
  • Media coverage
  • Attendance and ticket demand
  • The amount of money related to the event (The Super Bowl is said to have its own $1 billion economy, for example)
  • Cultural impact (For example, the tens of millions of people participating in March Madness pools)
  • Interest among English Wikipedia users
  • All the usual stuff about article quality, updates, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The IOC has members which are sport federations -- sports can't be included in the Olympics if they're not a member of the Olympic movement. While federations w/c are IOC members are extensive, we can use the more extensive membership by SportAccord.
BTW, the criteria 2B should not cover any of the events organized by GAA as it never receives marginal coverage elsewhere. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try to address both the issue of 'what is a major sport?' and the perennially debated issue of GAA events at ITNR.

I'm unaware of the specifics as to how the rule that we include the 'highest level competition of any "major sport"' came about. David Levy once searched for the discussion where this was agreed upon (around 2006) but couldn't find it. However, I can say that ITN has very different standards now than then. The notability bar was higher, and It used to be that the 'international significant/interest' criterion was applied very strictly. Thus only this 'major sport rule' allowed events like the NBA, the Superbowl, the NHL, etc to be posted as they were subject to being challenged as 'domestic' events. ITN's standards are very different now (the 'international interest' requirement has been dropped and thankfully as it was applied absurdly at times) and notable domestic events are posted regularly.

Again, I'm uncertain as to the exact intention of ITN editors when they made the rule, but it seems one of them was to promote diversity of sports. That is undoubtedly a good thing, but one problem I've had with that emphasis is that we fail to recognize diversity in sports that are played in multiple countries. The fact is that for the most part the sporting world is made up of a few sports that are popular in many countries, but the cultures of those sports can vary. Brazilian football has a distinct culture and history from the English Premier League, while Japanese baseball differs from American baseball. ITN can serve as a gateway to articles on those topics when the relevant championships occur. Unfortunately though I feel that the rule of posting the 'highest level competition of a major sport' has prevented us at times from exploring this diversity. (i.e Japanese baseball gets objected to because we already post the World Series winner), though recently we've made some improvements in this area.

I'm inclined to believe we don't need a firm rule that the highest championship of any 'major sport' is automatically included. We can look at sporting events on a case-by-base basis, though I do agree that we should seek to include a diverse number of sports. Ultimately though, I believe the notability of the event should be considered, not necessarily the sport.

Regarding the GAA, I would argue that if the only reason it's on ITNR is this 'major sport' rule, then I would recommend the events be dropped, since this rule was formed a long time ago adn may not represent current consensus. I've observed a few debates on whether to drop Gaelic football, and I don't remember more than a couple of posters regularly coming to its defence (correct me if I'm wrong), so I don't really see a consensus at the moment to keep the GAA events.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're quite correct that the agreement in question was reached at a time when some circumstances differed (and indeed, the ill-advised "international importance or interest" criterion was a factor).
Likewise, you're correct in noting the possibility that consensus has changed since then. As I stated above, we should discuss this (and if the idea no longer has the community's backing, let's abandon it).
But before we make any decisions, it's important that we understand what the agreement is and isn't.
In particular, it sometimes is misunderstood to bar all of a sport's competitions except its premier championship(s). Anyone opposing an item on that basis (as in the Japanese baseball example) is mistakenly citing a nonexistent rule (and should have his/her input discounted accordingly). Otherwise, no association football event other than the FIFA World Cup could ever be eligible.
The idea never was to exclude anything that otherwise would qualify. It was to address heated debates over whether particular sports are sufficiently noteworthy. Despite the "international importance or interest" criterion's elimination, such arguments remain common at WP:ITN/C, WT:ITN and Talk:Main Page, especially regarding U.S. sports (due to their relative lack of international competition and a widespread perception that Americans are ethnocentric). When such objections arise, it's extremely helpful to point out that we include the premier championship of every major sport (provided that the requisite article update occurs). For example, the assertion that the Super Bowl's inclusion reflects special treatment by/for Americans is negated by the fact that we apply the same principle to equivalent events from Australian rules football, Canadian football, Rugby league football, Rugby union football, and yes, Gaelic football. Every major football code is covered, so it's a non-issue. As soon as we decide to exclude one, this goes out the window (and we're back to endlessly debating all of them).
Regarding the term "major sport," it wasn't intended to be a particularly high bar (for the reasons noted above). We didn't set out to scrutinize popular sports and deem only certain ones sufficiently "major" (which would have largely defeated the purpose). We specified "major sport" because the unqualified term "sport" encompasses stuff along the lines of this and this.
So before we decide to throw out this longstanding agreement, let's give serious consideration to what it means, what it doesn't mean, and what the consequences of such a change would be. —David Levy 18:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with the very premise of using the Olympics as a benchmark. Many sports simply don't feature at the Olympics. Motorsport immediately comes to mind but cricket and rugby too. Even tennis has only been a full event at half of the modern Olympics on-and-off. On the other hand as already noted the games do include some fairly obscure events, not just fringe sports but narrow classifications. For instance, we didn't post anything about the Laser Olympic world cup last weekend? Should we have? It seems non-notable to me. The Laser (sailing) class is a full Olympic event. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

Let be me clear: my original criteria was that the international governing body be a member of the IOC, not necessarily an Olympic sport. Ergo, tug of war can be included. I amended this to include members of SportAccord. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the major sport criteria seems flawed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
As much as possible, I tried to restrict the criteria to prevent sports that are played at a high level on only one county while not being too restrictive to prevent other gimmes to be shut out. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Absoltuleyl NOT, thats your opinion and not gospel truth. major sport is not defined by olympic stature (then cricket woudlnt qualify)(Lihaas (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)).
I think the ICC is a member of the IOC. I said the sporting body is a member of the IOC, not an Olympic sport. All sporting bodies on the Olympics are part of the IOC, while some sporting bodies not in the Olympics are members of the IOC. Examples are rugby, cricket, baseball, sepak takraw, etc. –HTD 13:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah okay, but why should the IOC be the absolute barometre? self-imposed digniatries of sport.Lihaas (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I had amended it to members of SportAccord, which even includes more sports that are not IOC members. This ensures that the several sports are played in many countries and not just in one place. –HTD 02:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Royal Weddings

Noting the comments in the section above, I think that Royal Weddings should be added to ITN/R (frequency sporadic or 1 in 5 years?). We posted Sweden's Royal Wedding last year or the year before. No doubt tommorow's Royal Wedding in the UK will be on ITN too. I'd say that any Royal Wedding involing the child or grandchild of a reigning Monarch should be ITN/R material, subject to the event being held with significant public ceremony (i.e. granddaughter of a monarch getting married in a register office is not sufficient on its own). Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Please define a 'royal wedding' more explicitly. What exactly counts? e.g. which family members etc. Would Charles & Camila count? I'm not overly convinced this needs anything more than ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 00:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Charles and Camilla would count, he being a child of a reigning monarch. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Enshrining simply "royal weddings" in ITN/R raises issues of selective bias. The marriage of someone like Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark, however elaborate and publicised, certainly wouldn't (and didn't) warrant a mention. And even if you limited it to those of heirs apparent, I get the feeling that most would have found it unusual to see the wedding of Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Crown Prince of Qatar, or even that of Al-Muhtadee Billah, Crown Prince of Brunei, posted on the main page. I certainly wouldn't expect to see the wedding of Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg, posted on the main page when it happens. Nightw 02:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And why not, subject to the conditions outlined above, he is the child of a reigning monarch. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The same arguments against can be made for elections in microstates - which we post so they get some coverage, and because generally they don't meet the update requirements. I think including all royal weddings is reasonable for the same reason. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying I personally would object, I'm saying I'd expect most others to do so. Either way, it's still a vague proposal. What about the wedding of young Afonso, Prince of Portugal when it happens? Or those of Sirajuddin, Raja of Perlis and Zwelonke Sigcawu, King of the Xhosa, when they occurred? They were both public spectacles widely reported domestically. And the recent marriage of David Bagration of Georgia was widely reported in the international media, and had large implications for the country's monarchist movement. But certainly you couldn't get a consensus to post these even if you nominated them individually. Nightw 02:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
None of those four meet the criteria I stated. One that does meet the criteria and is forthcoming is the marriage of Albert II, Prince of Monaco and Charlene Wittstock on 1 July (civil) / 2 July (religious). Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding royal weddings given the lack of substantial objections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it again, because there isn't any substantial support either. We have the nominator and yourself in favour, me against, and Night w sounding sceptical. You need to establish better consensus than that, especially if you're going to add it yourself. Modest Genius talk 13:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A good test case is that the king of Bhutan, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, will get married on May 2011. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@Modest Genius, I didn't think you were against - just that you wanted more explanation which you got. Sorry if I misread what you said. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm saying these should be left to ITN/C, rather than listed on ITNR. Sorry if I was unclear. Modest Genius talk 14:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
oppose too eurocentric. how many other roayl weddings are there. brunei and lesotho?(Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)).
Thailand, Malaysia, Japan... the list goes on... dunno if this will be applied to non-Eurocentric monarchies, though. –HTD 13:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Forgot about Japan and Thailand. Malaysia "royalty" is not significant there. its more regional (even if given national flavour)
On the verge of strong support but is there a list of current monarchies somewhere. (even non-existant ones that are living, ie- no power but theoretically royals)Lihaas (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
List of current pretenders? I'd prefer royal weddings on national thrones, though. –HTD 04:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cue sports

Why is it that both the World Snooker Championship and the World 9-Ball Championship are on ITN/R? NW (Talk) 15:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be? Please elaborate. —David Levy 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Because I have never observed sustained media coverage about them. I fail to see how snooker is different from poker in this respect, which we do not post. NW (Talk) 16:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we post poker, its almost certainly of wider interest than Gaelic football. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
To me that's not an argument for posting poker but an argument for removing Gaelic football. NW (Talk) 20:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. I think Poker is of interest in many of the world's countries and that while it isn't the biggest sport it is competitive and probably the biggest tournaments are worthy of consideration. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I see no reason not to include the premier poker championship(s). —David Levy 21:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, we should be posting the winner of the WSOP main event, if nothing else. Courcelles 21:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Boldly added that to WT:ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree, and have removed it from ITNR pending further discussion. Our article on the 2010 WSOP is a bit confusing, but what I got out of it was that the Main Event took place either in mid-July or November. I searched Google News archives for both time spans; neither really attracted the attention of the media at large. There are only 24 other articles similar to this one, which is much lower than it is for other sports. NW (Talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it took place in both months. They've got some idea now that when the tournament reaches nine players, they all go home, and come back in November to play it out days before ESPN airs the final table. Courcelles 22:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a random comment - it might be a function of my location, but the World Snooker Championship gets a ton of media coverage, including weeks of live TV and featuring as the main sports story in most of the newspapers. Neither the 9 Ball nor Poker tournaments get anything more than a brief mention anywhere. Snooker is clearly a much more popular sport than many others already on ITNR. Modest Genius talk 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

World 9-Ball Champonship had wall-to-wall coverage in our place. Presumably in Taiwan too. And it has more countries (ncluding the Crown Prince of Brunei) participating than the snooker one. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you point to a Google News link of "wall-to-wall coverage" for 9-Ball? In any case, I don't think we should be putting it up while the article looks like this. @Snooker: The only real sources I can find are from the United Kingdom or Ireland. There are a couple from news agencies, China, and ESPN, but that's it. That's not enough to meet ITN criteria, in my opinion. NW (Talk) 14:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Here are two sources for pool. Apparently the 2007 event aired on ESPN Star Sports so that's like 17 countries. It also aired at the UK via Sky Sports and if I'm not mistaken in the U.S. too. As for article quality, we'd only look at the quality of the article that'll be boldfaced (the tournament article); unlike the content on the left side of the Main Page, those on the right side are easier to update but harder to feature in the main page. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.)
Given the lack of further opposition to Poker, I'm going to re-add it. Otherwise we never make any changes to ITNR, which is generally annoying. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Poker does seem reasonable enough. Modest Genius talk 13:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I would see the inclusion of poker, while still arguing that Gaelic football should be removed, as classic US-centrism. It even seems doubtful to me to call it a sport. Perhaps its inclusion should be argued under another category. Obviously no conclusive discussion on the matter should occur under this heading of Cue sports. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop this US centric paranoia. Guess where people lose the most money from gambling per head? Australia. Guess where the most profitable casino's are? Singapore. Guess where the biggest gambling city is, Macau. None of which are inside the US. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All sadly true, but totally irrelevant to the discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hilo, I'd consider your comment more reflective of an anti-poker bias rather than saying that supporting poker's inclusion is a pro-US bias. Much as I also loath televised poker, it's a major sport worldwide, or if you refuse to consider it a sport it's at least a very popular competitive activity.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Tony Awards

We just posted the 65th Tony Awards. Any chance we could make the Tony Awards an ITNR event so we don't have to discuss it every year? NW (Talk) 22:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable as its the premier English language award for the artform. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I honestly thought they already were on here, so support. But if we add them, surely we should also include the West End equivalent - the Laurence Olivier Award? The two are apparently of roughly equal stature, albeit with different emphases. Modest Genius talk 23:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of this and the West End equivalent(s). I was surprised when I nominated this year's Tony Awards to see that it was not already ITNR. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Just as the usual, we'd always go by pairs -- one from the U.S. and another from UK and its surrounding countries. Tonys and Laurence Olivier, Super Bowl and the 2 Gaelic events (LOL), Oscars and BAFTAs (what the?). This always leads to good coverage on a major event, good coverage on a marginal event, and zero coverage elsewhere. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to include an equivalent from outside Europe if one exists? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both the Tonys and the Laurance Olivier Award, if in fact the LOA is the equivelent to the Tonys. I take Howard's point that our coverage sometimes is: something from the US, + something from Europe to make us feel 'international', and that's it. However, for theater, I actually think this approach may be more appropriate than for some other events. (1) Broadway Theater & the West End are of very comparable stature, and are the dominant centres of theatre in the English speaking world. This is very different from comparing, say, Hollywood cinema and the British film industry. I don't know exactly about the importance of the Laurence Olivier Award specifically, but if it's the Tony equivelent, then it certainly isn't a marginal event. (2) Also, given that this is the .en wiki, I do think an empahsis on English-language theatre is perhaps more justifiable (or perhaps, practical) than other areas, as language is much more intrinsically tied to theatre than to, say, sport. The language barrier and geography prevent most English speakers from seeing theatre in other languages. Yes, we should strive to cover the non-English speaking world, but are we going to find sufficient sources in English covering theatre elsewhere? Compare that to cinema, which is easily viewable in subtitled/dubbed form worldwide irrespective of its country of origin, with non-English language cinema receiving considerable media coverage in the US/UK etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been little opposition (notwithstanding HTD's comments above), I've added both the Tony's and Olivier's to the list. Modest Genius talk 22:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

id support it too, but i would also adde the need to add entertainment awards outside the anglo/western world. bollywood, china, etc.(Lihaas (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)).
I considered this but I can't find anything. –HTD 02:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)a
If we think of other spheres of culture besides theater (i.e. plays in English or another language) I think we might be able to come up with some worthy ITN additions. Just off the top of my head, the following significant areas of culture are not represented in ITNR, several of which are very important in the non-western or non-English speaking world: Ballet, Opera (and Chinese Opera), Classical Music, Comic Books/Manga, Anime. I don't know if there are awards in any of these areas of note, but annual awards are not the only form of recognition.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Bollywood

As all aqwards are anglo/wesetern im WP:BOLDly adding at least 1 bollywood award, though other non-western awards are welcomed and encouragedtoo.

Nver mind its already there. though not posted(Lihaas (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)).

Narrow down space exploration

It is really tenable that any space mission is automatically notable? It seems to me that there are plenty of missions that are not, indeed, there are many that are not even nominated. For example, we didn't even even bother to post the last Progress resupply mission to the ISS in July 2009 - yes, it was ITNR listed at that time. When valid candidates are not even nominated that suggests to me there is little interest in those and therefore shouldn't be listed in the first place. Satellite launches are probably not universally and automatically notable, either.

Therefore I propose we narrow down the criteria to launches of:

  • Manned space missions - these will generally have a higher level of public interest
  • Unmanned missions beyond geostationary orbit - this will exclude commerical satellites but allow interplanetary probes or anything going to the Moon. Again, these are missions were I anticipate greater public interest.

Any other candidates can be considered as regular items on ITN/C if they are considered in some way significant, for example, they are particularly notable payloads or indeed they are launch failures - the fact they are not ITNR listed should not be used against them. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

I suggested a new set of criteria for this over a year ago (see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_2#Space_flight). For some reason, I seem to remember any decision being deferred until after the Space Shuttle retired, which is this month. I still think those guidelines would be better. Modest Genius talk 22:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, we're in the middle of that final Shuttle mission right now, so can we talk? I think the key to recurring notability is in the title of this section. It's the word exploration. Resupply missions to the ISS are not exploration. Satellite launches aren't either. That fits pretty well with your earlier criteria...
I've excluded your earlier suggestions of low earth orbit and suborbital craft. I suggest that they each need to be argued on merit at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This seems reasonable but how often do launches occur that would qualify?--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
A top-of-the-head guess would be roughly one per year on those guidelines. If we were to include manned missions to LEO, about 5 or 6 per year (science missions, ISS crew rotations plus the occasional Chinese mission). Modest Genius talk 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see much to gain by defining criteria too exactly. There's always going to be exceptions. RxS (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of World Netball Championships

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result is Keep. Though there were many !votes to remove posted in the discussion at ITN/C, the consensus here is clear.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The general consensus in a recent discussion was that World Netball Championships are not sufficiently notable for the main page. I suggest it is removed from the list unless a consensus to keep it there should emerge. Mocctur (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is probably worth keeping. It doesn't draw a great deal of media interest its true, but it looks like a well established World Championship, with a decent number of countries entering from around the world in a sport that is played to some degree on most continents. One story every 4 years doesn't seem extensive and if there is a decent update, why not highlight the content occasionally. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Im in support of removing netball from this list. Netball isnt a worldwide popular sport in fact it is a quite narrow sport only popular in a few specific countries.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
If worldwide popularity is the criteria doesn't that require a major cull of sports stories? Can any team sport apart from association football claim to have worldwide popularity? ReadingOldBoy (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Boxing? Skip-rope? (lol) –HTD 14:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep it where it is -- it's one story every four years, and an established world championship in a sport that is played in at least one major multi-sport event (the Commonwealth Games). If it were every year, that might be too much, but not one every four. Courcelles 15:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Courcelles makes a good point -- we'd only get 1 netball item for every four years. That's not so much. –HTD 15:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think being a sport at the Commonwealth Games (and no other multi-sport events) is a significant argument. It is not an Olympic sport, and that is a very low bar. Yes there are non-Olympic sports on ITNR, but there is significant evidence of those sports' notability in other venues.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep As has been said here and elsewhere on this topic and related, these World Championships are well developed, well attended (by participating nations), and established as one of the calendar highlights of the sport. Judgement calls on whether anything is notable for this project (from members of parliaments to types of butterfly) can be hard and harsh to make. In this case, a minority sport's grand final seems, taken from a world-wide perspective, to have the notability within its field to justify regular front page inclusion for the week or so it's there within In The News. Some sports may well fall by the measures we implement as the list is reviwed. In this case, netball and its World Championship seems fine to stay doktorb wordsdeeds 15:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Seven users at the ITN discussion opposed posting this due to notability. They may not comment here, but their opinions are certainly relevant. Swarm X 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
keep diversity of sporting interests
also discussion on ITNC are separate from ITNR, if they cant be bothered to discuss here then it doesnt hold much water.Lihaas (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
They probably aren't aware of it yet. Give it time. Equally, those supporting here probably weren't aware of the ITNC discussion (unlike you, I'm not assuming in bad faith that they couldn't be bothered to support it). The point is that it is entirely possible that two separate 'communities' are forming two different consensuses that diverge from each other. Hopefully editors from both will involve themselves in both ITNC and ITNR, and not pick and chose where they participate. Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlike you im not resorting to NPA that are unrelated to content or assuming bad faith right here hypocritically. lets please keep this oput of here.(Lihaas (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)).
  • Support removal, it's not a popular enough sport to justify including. And while I'm keen on providing more coverage for women, I don't get how adding something just once every four years will make a difference. Hot Stop (c) 18:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep on the grounds of interest to women, it only happening every four years, and it having more interest (if you ignore the main page spike) than HTD's favourite Irish sporting event which has never had consensus to be removed (and before someone quotes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in this case Gaelic football has actually been discussed extensively). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • someday my great grandkids will get consensus to have that removed lol. –HTD 18:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • and it's bad enough we don't have anything from netball's sister women's basketball. The 2010 World Championship sorta had consensus and had updates(?) but was ignored in the ITN/C nomination. I suspect more women play basketball than any other team sport, even soccer -- it's a travesty we never posted anything from that. Probably because basketball is an American sport so we have netball, and this mess. –HTD 18:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Every four years is not a common occurrence. So much so that by the time it is nominated again in 2015, no one will remember this discussion. I agree it's not the poster sport to display on ITN, but it's sufficient. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • But that misses the whole point. We should not be taking decisions four years in advance for the editors that will be around in 2015. Possibly none of us will still be editing Wikipedia at that point. We should leave this as a provisional consensus, to be confirmed nearer the time (say, a year in advance). This should apply for all events that occur infrequently. I will start a new section on this below, based mainly on how it is important to ensure that this page doesn't conflict with WP:CCC (consensus can change). Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep; it's a good opportunity to get a less well known, but still major, event onto the main page. It's items like these which help to keep ITN from devolving into a news ticker with only major Western events noted, and with the championships once in four years there's hardly going to be an inundation of netball items. C628 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove - I say remove it from the list of sports for ITN. No world interest.only interesting for a very few countries. I see no good reason to post netball on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
in that case no superbowl and mlb?(Lihaas (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)).
LOL. Tell that to the Japanese who allocated an entire channel (NHK BS1) to air Seattle Mariners games (at least that's what I always see there lol), and they made an anime about American football. Baseball is like cricket, massively popular on countries that play them, no one cares about it elsewhere. Sri Lankans couldn't be bothered to care about the World Series, same with Americans on the Cricket World Cup. –HTD 03:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting - can anyone work out why the consensus forming here is different from the one that formed at the candidate discussion? It seems that consensus depends heavily on location and participants in a discussion. This is not earth-shattering news, but it suggests that the claims for a true consensus at either place are very weak if results vary so much. Anyway, I will also post here what I said there:

    "the concept of WP:ITN/R can violate WP:CCC (consensus can change) if it is not applied with common sense. What we have here is a consensus among only three people, and dating from 2007, over-riding a current and active consensus, among a greater number of editors, being formed in 2011. If you stop and think about it, that can't be right. I understand that WP:ITN/R was intended to avoid arguments like this, but it was most certainly not intended to allow a years-old consensus to over-ride a current consensus (or lack of consensus). At the very least, this shows that the less frequent items on ITN/R (remember that this is the first time netball has come up) should be debated every year (say), so that the consensus is at least more recent than 3 or 4 years (in the case of quadrennial competitions). I'm tempted to mark WP:ITN/R as invalid until a new discussion decides whether any of the events there truly have current consensus, rather than an old and possibly outdated consensus."

    Now, I can see that consensus forming here is more solid than the one that formed in 2007, and it favours the retention of netball, but can we please recognise that this page needs at least an annual discussion to refresh the list and find out whether consensus has changed for any items here. Also, are there any other events on here that (like the netball) had not yet appeared since the formation of this page? If so, a situation like this one can be headed off before it happens again. Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Part of it is that many people don't bother to vote in support ITNR items as they go up anyway, I know I don't. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, my oppose vote was based on article quality, not on the merits of the event. Upon further thought here, I've completely switched position. C628 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
      • @Carcharoth--One of the problems with this page is that it gets fewer eyes than ITN/C, so any consensus here is going to have weaker grounding than one formed at ITN/C. As Eraserhead1 stated, if an item is on ITNR, people don't bother to support. I would state that the netball discussion did not result in a clear consensus to not post IMO. Yes there were many oppose votes but the they were muddled with arguments about significance versus the state of the article. I do think this list gets reviewed regularly--it was rather comprehensively reviewed earlier this year with several events being added. Posters regularly suggest items to be added or removed (with Gaelic Football often at the center of discussion). At the end of the day, netball's world championship is only every four years, and consensus for it to be on ITNR does appear to continue, so I don't see this as evidence of a major problem.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the opposes here and at the ITN/C page are due to the sport not being notable or popular enough. Is there any criteria/thresholds (de facto or otherwise) or past consensus on what constitutes a notable sport/item for ITN? In the Gaelic football argument above an editor mentions a "premier championships of every major sport", but there is no link to back this up? If so what makes something a major sport? AIRcorn (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Our criteria are unfortunately rather scant. There's been attempts to agree on some criteria but they've failed to gather consensus. The 'premier championship of every major sport' was an informal criterion in the past created in ITN discussions several years ago. user:David Levy attempted to find the conversation but was unable to. I think you'll find, if you look at WP:INTR, that there's a general preference for sports that are popular in terms of having a large audience (t.v. or spectators), having widespread popularity, and having significant media coverage (i.e. prominent mention in major news sources and/or widespread media coverage).--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep As is common in these discussions, obvious parochial interests come into play. I expect to be condemned for saying this, but it could even be US-centrism in action. Netball is pretty popular in most English speaking countries outside North America. I truly don't know about Canada, so I might change my suggestion to North American-centrism. Wikipedia has to have a way of dealing with sports that are almost unknown to our massive readership on that continent, but popular elsewhere. I'm sure it's been justified in earlier discussions, but American football fits most of criticisms made of netball in many of the Remove style posts, but I don't plan to propose removing it. So, have those saying Netball should be removed really looked beyond the boundaries of their own land? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I presume it's watched in Australia... so is it massively popular there to the point the opposing TV networks have to make up counterprogramming and such? –HTD 02:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Being a World championship, time zones come into play for TV attention. Its location this time allowed prime time, live coverage in Australia. No idea about the ratings. But there's other forms of popularity as well. Netball is the most popular women's team participation sport in Australia. Even males play it on a small scale! So a lot of people would have had an interest in the event under discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Like Avenue X, I nominated it in ITN/C hence support its retention here, but it's a good idea not to use "U.S. biaz" as a reason -- we dunno the nationalities who opposed its inclusion here, and there's no U.S. item being proposed for it to be replaced with. TV ratings is not the sole factor, and as you've said, participation is another factor, and funnily enough, American sports also fall into this too as what I said in baseball in Japan and women's basketball worldwide -- the Australian women's basketball is the second strongest in the world. –HTD 04:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
          • There are some pretty extreme posts above and on the ITN/C saying things like "not notable", "not a major sport", "not notable internationally", etc. As I said, truthfully, in my earlier post "Netball is popular in most English speaking countries outside North America". Those negative posts are in English. It' quite reasonable to assume they've come from somewhere where netball isn't played, hence my guess at the USA. Many years ago I did training in negotiation and found that it's always wise to work out the real motivations of those one is debating with. Hence my guess. (We all do it, BTW, whether we realise it or not.) And it's actually significant that "we dunno the nationalities" of who those wanting netball gone. This is a topic where national differences are going to be significant. I think editors should tell us where they're from, and put their cultural bias on the table. Happy to tell the world that my cultural bias is Australian. I try to lessen its impact as much as I can ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
              • If you look at Howard the Duck's interesting table of Domestic sporting events at ITNR, you'll find that while the US isn't overly represented, Australia/NZ are quite well represented. Given that Netball seems primarily of interested in Oz/NZ, perhaps that's a more relevant focus of bias rather than some imaginary US plot to get rid of netball.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Netball and the Olympic Movement. ... (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I actually only recently found out that netball was not a widely-played sport internationally. I had to sit there explaining it to two Portuguese girls and a German guy, astounded that they didn't know what it was. I think we later came to the conclusion that it's only really known in ex-British countries. But this is the English Wikipedia, so that's really not an issue. And I agree with Htd on the grounds that it's of interest to women. Nightw 07:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment If interest to women is a factor, there are a number of sports that are more significant than netball. Woman's basketball and figure skating come to mind.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion. Significance is subjective. Nightw 08:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, but to judge these subjective issues using the available facts all the time. Basketball is played worldwide by both genders. It's played at a high level well outside commonwealth countries. Finalists at FIBA World Championship for Women include the US, Russia, Brazil, Australia, Japan, Korea, Yugoslavia. That's a pretty wide geographic spread. It has several professional leagues. I seriously doubt you can make an argument that strong for netball. Figure skating is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison but I would argue that notable winners of the Ladies Singles are household names in many countries. Regarding the conversation with your Portuguese and German friends, you wouldn't have to explain what these sports were to them.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I reckon you might struggle with Portugal. Well, they would probably know what figure skating is, but I'm pretty sure it's not a major sport there. Similarly for my country, Australia. Netball - huge, figure skating - very minor sport. Any country closer to the equator would be unlikely to have an interest either. And this is our problem. Every way of doing these comparisons is fraught with difficulty. No magic formula. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The thing with American and Commonwealth sports is that one is not popular on the areas where the other is. Basketball is popular is Lithuania, Yugoslavia and the Philippines while you'd never see kids playing cricket or rugby in those areas. Meanwhile, you won't see kids playing baseball in Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe. Commonwealth people will scoff at the idea that more people play basketball than cricket or even rugby, while it may be the case. –HTD 08:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Careful with cricket. It's big in India. And India's big! HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
China's bigger and they play basketball. Yao Ming is the most popular Chinese athlete in history. –HTD 09:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
All true. I guess it just proves that both cricket and basketball are big. HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yet it is tough to sell basketball at ITN/C. If I hadn't trolled at the NBA Finals someone would've bitched about it. –HTD 09:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Further to Howards point, the 2010 FIBA World Championship for Women was nominated last year and was not posted; the frequent argument being that 'The US winning another basketball title isn't notable'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously I thought this was easier as it is a non-American sport lol –HTD 10:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, 'Australia winning another Netball title isn't notable' certainly has to be valid reason for this to be stricken from ITNR--they win it virtually every time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
They almost lost though -- the game went into extra time. –HTD 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I challenge you to stand in the middle of Auckland, New Zealand and make the claim that Australia win it nearly every time. The reason the finals are usually dramatic affairs is that they don't. HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
There've been 13 Netball world championships. Australia have won 10 of them. Certainly more often than the US wins the Fiba world basketball championship. All have been own by Australia or New Zealand (except some bizarre year when 1st place was shared jointly by Aus, NZ, and Trinidad and Tobago--what happened there?)--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Being realistic, nearly every time Australia meets NZ it can be considered a world championship match. This includes Commonwealth Games and other tournaments. You would need to look at all those for a real picture to emerge. HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but we're discussing the Netball World Championships here. Which btw, I'm not opposing--I just feel that it's less notable than some things not on ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep It's nice to give the minor sports their place in the sun while waiting for the important ones to have their own championships. --Jayron32 16:46, 12 July 2011 (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.