Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Inclusion proposal: Farnborough Airshow & Geneva Motor Show

A section or so above, we've been encouraged to include more trade shows. So I'd advocate the inclusion of the following at ITN/R. Farnborough Airshow, last held in 2012, saw over $72 billion of orders confirmed, over 1500 exhibitors, over 100,000 trade visitors and 100,000 public visitors.[1]. The Geneva Motor Show attracted over 690,000 visitors this year.[2] The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - as I said above we need more business stories on ITN. Notable trade shows seem to be a good way to accomplish this aim. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Support based on e.g. New York Times and BBC. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I think this depends on how the above discussion ends up being closed. If we can't be sensible, we should at least be consistent about it. Formerip (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It does not appear that there are articles on the individual annual shows for either event. I could only support this if we started having articles such as 2013 Farnborough Airshow with significant content. As for aviation, major unveilings/maiden flights of significant new aircraft (such as the Airbus A380) are would be quite viable ITN/C candidates, so I do not believe that there is a deficiency in our aviation coverage that particularly needs to be filled. Thinking about it, it does seem that we have little coverage of commercial motoring - this may be an issue we should find some way of addressing. We do however cover motorspot in reasonable detail; this has a tangential relationship to commercial motoring. --LukeSurl^{t c} 22:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- We can easily generate individual airshow articles (listing aircraft demonstrations and "deals done"), just like we have individual video game conference articles which are simply lists of new video games which are "announced". It'd be easy. On the flipside, what did E3 "launch" that the various individual announcements from Microsoft and Sony didn't already cover regarding new consoles? What amazing video games were announced exclusively at E3 that we didn't all know about? It's a genuine question.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  - Well, Microsoft gave us some talking points... --LukeSurl^{t c} 22:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Support and consider adding NAIAS as well. North American Car of the Year has become an important award in the industry. I think for all of the above, the show will require a standalone article which can be featured on the main page (same as sporting events). --IP98 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, North American Car of the Year is a meaningless award. But otherwise, I think you're right. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Support - If we were to keep E3 and CES, though those two needs to have its own article, also include International Car of the Year and European Car of the Year. Donnie Park (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per my vote on the CES/E3 events above, I'd rather these go through ITNC. Hot Stop 02:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Question 2012 Farnborough Airshow doesn't exist (for example)...should it have a separate article or significant updates elsewhere to appear on ITN? The main article doesn't have any real updates from 2012. RxS (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- We could easily create a 2014 article as required. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Question. Is the nom supporting? That would seem to be a tad inconsistent as the importance outside of specialised media would seem to be about the same as CES/E3. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am. Thanks for asking. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Is there any fundamental difference apart from the subject matter that sways your two !votes? 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In my mind yes. These video games conferences are mass adverts for the general populace and Wikipedia's free advertising (i.e. we promote the "start" of these fairs) is dubious in my mind. International motor and airshows are industry-based and having them on the main page (preferably when they're finished) is not free advertising to the masses. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Normal people buy cars though. E3 is preferable, in my mind, to posting "PS4 announced" (or worse "PS4 released"). BBC can cover both E3 and car shows without the coverage being construed as advertisement. Anyway, I guess we just disagree on whether these events are similar enough that consistency in Wikipedia's coverage of them is desireable. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed we do. I would be surprised if anyone thought promoting CoD:Ghosts to the masses is similar to an A380. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, "the masses" read Wikipedia. Our readers don't buy A380s, they do buy CoD. Per WP:ITN/P #1 and #3 I think its valuable to cover E3 and CES. I just don't see how a one liner like "The 2014 Consumer Electronics Show begins in Las Vegas, Nevada" could be considered free advertising. --IP98 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Noted, you' d already expressed your position in detail, further clarification isn't needed to help us understand where you stand. But not seeing how displaying the opening of a trade show on our main page for several days is advertising is beyond me. Why not note its closing and anything significant that took place (although that seems another problem, nothing really does happen). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons I opposed the CES and EEE (see my oppose above in that section). Neljack (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose - I do think we need more trade and industry stories, but I'm not convinced that these are the ones to pick. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Could I be bold enough to ask which ones should be in ITN/R? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You certainly may! However, I haven't any really great suggestions. I am open to hearing them from others. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Procedural oppose. Suggest at WP:ITN/C first. –H T D 03:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Uber Cup and Thomas Cup

After basketball, let's head back to badminton. I tried to get some interest in comments on these above, but it somewhat petered out. So, as I noted, neither of these appear to have ever featured in ITN (demonstrating a lack of interest in updating these articles I suppose). We need to gauge consensus on whether either or both of these are removed from ITN/R. We do have the World Championships (BWF World Championships) listed at ITN/R. (As an aside, it seems anomalous to me that we have three badminton ITN/Rs and only one cycling ITN/R.... but that's just my opinion). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove. The nominated events are akin to Davis Cup and Fed Cup (which we don't have listed), only with less coverage as the sport in general has less coverage. I think one ITNR item is sufficient for badminton, and I think the World Championships are the most suitable as badminton is an individual sport. I may be convinced that we should remove the World Championships instead, if the cups are clearly more prestigious. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep Thomas Cup. I'm not sure why it has never been posted. Has it ever been nominated, or is it the quality? Thomas Cup is the oldest tournament of the three, and I would contend, is as prestigious as BWF World Championships.[3] It is the premier team event. On the other hand, some people would rate Olympics or maybe All England as more prestigious than World Championships for individual events. After all, World Championships isn't held on Olympic years. ... (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it is the premier team event, I don't think the premier team event of an individual sport is neccessarily important enough for posting. I stand by my original vote as the BWF states that the World Championships are "[t]he most prestigious tournament in Badminton". As for the Olympics, see basketball discussion above. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: According to our article, the Uber Cup and Thomas Cup have effectively been merged (i.e. they occur simultaneously at the same location). Thus, the two would only account for one blurb so I see no reason to remove just one. Now, should both be removed? Badminton is certainly not popular in the West, but is very popular in Asia, so we need to be careful. The relevant question is "how important are the team competitions to Asian badminton fans?" (Also, in regards to cycling the Giro was posted this year with basically unanimous support so I imagine it won't be difficult to add it to ITN/R.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment neither of these have ever featured in ITN, so I can't imagine any damage being done if they're simply nominated as required through the normal ITN/C route. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Removal the comparison to the Davis Cup seems apt. There's no real reason why we can't remove them, have them go through ITNC to a get a better test of consensus (since apparently they've never been) and revisit the events at that point. Calidum Sistere 17:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose On balance, I agree with Thaddeus. Combining the blurbs for these two events seems to provide the best way forward. I think people underestimate the popularity of badminton - it is one of the most popular sports in the world because it is big in populous countries such as China and Indonesia. Neljack (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose These are regular events, but have never been featured in ITN. I'd prefer to re-open this discussion if and when they are. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The world championship is not more significant then the Thomas Cup. Generally the Thomas Cup is more significant than the World Championship although since these are different sorts of events, it's difficult to make a comparison since both are fairly significant. (The Olympics gold is generally more significant but as with most events, the large number of sports during the Olympics means we can't feature it.) AFAIK things are fairly similar for the Uber Cup. And to be blunt, comparing to tennis is dumb. Each sport has their own significant events depending a host of factors. The Davis Cup and Fed Cup are far less significant than many events in tennis, so much so that I expect a fair few people who follow tennis have barely heard of them and can't name the winners even if they can for a number of other events, but this is not the case for the Thomas or Uber Cup. I'm not even convinced the Ryder/President's cup which we do list has anywhere near the significance compared to the majors as Thomas/Uber has for badminton but I don't follow golf well enough to know. (In fact since I mentioned the olympics, we all know whatever tennis players and the federation may sometimes say publicly, the olympics is relatively unimportant for tennis compared to the opens but as I've mentioned this is not the case for badminton and a number of other events.) I can't remember whether I've ever commented on these before but I've definitely supported them, AFAIK the primary reason why they've never been on ITN is because the article was never sufficiently updated in time (to be blunt when I looked at it the article was usually rather bad) so there was little point nominating them. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Updating lead of ITN/R

See the above section about CES/E3 for the core argument.

The current wording uses:

Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page before being posted.

From my own experience, this is not true. Being on ITN/R is not a "rubber stamp" (ignoring the required article updates that are necessary) to getting an ITN item, just a reasonably strong assurance. ITN/C's that are an ITN/R are commented on not just only in the article/update quality but do consider the importance of that specific instance of that item - it is possible that an item on ITN/R with a good update will not be posted because of consesnsus. Which I don't see as a problem, that's why we have the ITN/C process.

To update this, I suggest the following change to the above:

Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN~~every time they occur~~. However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page to review the importance of the specific occurrence of the item before being posted.

(Removing the struck line, adding the bold). This maintains the current practice, and avoids the mentality that ITN/R is a rubber stamp for inclusion. This also means that if you disagree that a recurring item in general is a problem (as with the CES/E3 stuff above), you take it to ITN/R to get it off that list, and avoid filling ITN/C with what is effectively off topic discussion. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good start. I would certainly look to explaining what the so-called "the 'importance' criterion" is, so we don't have any debates over that. The other issue is that we shouldn't mandate people to move over to ITN/R to attempt to "delist" an article or, at least, dispute an article's inclusion at ITN/C. We've had a couple of ITN/Rs lately that have never made it to the main page, and hence it's questionable as to why they should be there, and we've had a couple of ITN/Rs lately that have been opposed on notability grounds. This isn't a bad thing, but what is a bad thing is the perception that is often propounded, i.e. "It's in ITN/R so your concerns over notability aren't relevant". We need to remember that consensus changes, and can do so frequently and/or rapidly. ITN/R is something of an anachronism in that respect, a list of "golden tickets". I can think of nothing else on Wikipedia which provides such a guarantee. My opinion is that ITN/R is a list of items which are "usually" posted, and is a good guide to those things that will gain easy support once adequate updates are made. It's a ready reckoner, and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose as totally unnecessary. The result of the change is that every ITN/C discussion is about notability and quality, making ITN/R pointless. This is a blatant attempt to change the wording of ITN/R as to make it irrelevant. We've been down this road before, and sneaking it in the side isn't going to work. --IP98 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The point may be missing here. Say there's an annual event X. Someone proposes at ITN/R that X should be on there because it is generally 1) well covered by the news and 2) typically has an article on the yearly instance of that event. Consensus agrees, boom, the event in general sits on ITN/R. Now the events comes up for 2014, so at ITN/C someone proposes that the 2014 X should be ITN, citing ITN/R. Now, what this means is that the "importance" of the overall event (considering its past and present) shouldn't be the subject of discussion (that was dealt with in getting the event on ITN/R), but the specific instance should be considered. I point to the E3 discussion above as the specific example of how this represents practice: E3 is an ITN/R, but this year's E3 wasn't posted because editors didn't think this instance of the event was important. This does not mean 2014's E3 isn't important, as (barring removal) when it comes up against next year, it again can be an ITN/C. In other words we are separating the general concept of the recurring event (which should only be done at ITN/R), and the specific instance of that one event (at ITN/C). If people start questing the general event's inclusion at ITN/R at the ITN/C, someone needs to step in and say that arguments not helping the ITN/C and direct them to ITN/R to argue removal. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
As the current wording indicates, ITN/R's intended purpose is to list recurring events whose notability can be assumed to be sufficient every time, thereby eliminating the need to debate it. If an event (such as E3) isn't sufficiently notable every time, it doesn't belong on the list.
If the concept is infeasible (because recurring events' ongoing notability can't be gauged reliably and consensus is subject to change), it should simply be scrapped. If we're going to debate the events' notability anyway, why bother maintaining the list? What's the point? We already have the problem of editors opposing nominations because events aren't listed at ITN/R, so its overall impact would become detrimental (if it isn't now). —David Levy 22:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The easiest way to frame it is what we do at WP:NFCI - a list of generally acceptable non-free image uses. That list is not a guaranty that the non-free media can be used but are cases that most often you're going to be okay; the details gets worked out in case-by-case. If we want to add or remove the broad case, we talk about it at WT:NFC. This is effectively the same approach that I see here.

To put it another way, if E3 wasn't on the list, then every year presumably someone will nominate it, and 90% of the discussion will revolve around "The E3 show in general shouldn't be ITN", not whether that instance should be included. In other words - wasting everyone's time for a discussion that likely happened the year before and the year before that. From this E3 ITN/C and discussion around, there is agreement that at times trade shows will have ITN-worthy material to be discussion with the cavaet that it doesn't happen every time. So the ITN/C should not be clogged down about discussion "Oh, trade shows aren't appropriate at all" - that was the discussion to have at ITN/R, but instead focus on the one instance. Otherwise, basically this last E3 nom shows the inherent problems with this current system - as the wording states, it should have never been opposed at that time because E3 shouldn't have been on ITN/R - that was a separate discussion but since it was on there, the instance itself should have been posted once the article was cleared. This has been a problem that I've seen with other noms, so it's not just getting E3 on there. It's reflecting actually practice at ITN/C, that the ITN/R presence is not a rubber stamp. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The easiest way to frame it is what we do at WP:NFCI - a list of generally acceptable non-free image uses.
That isn't a list of specific images. For ITN's purposes, an analogous list would be one of event types generally considered suitable candidates for inclusion. I would question such a list's helpfulness, but its utility probably would exceed that of the format proposed.
To put it another way, if E3 wasn't on the list, then every year presumably someone will nominate it, and 90% of the discussion will revolve around "The E3 show in general shouldn't be ITN", not whether that instance should be included.
If such a sentiment is prominent, E3 should appear on neither the current ITN/R list nor the version that you propose. The intent is to expedite uncontroversial nominations by eliminating unnecessary procedural formalities, not to override notability concerns.
In other words - wasting everyone's time for a discussion that likely happened the year before and the year before that.
It's a waste of time if the outcome is obvious, not if the consensus falls within the margin of fluctuation (especially if we have to debate the particular instance's notability anyway).
As noted above, we already have editors opposing nominations because the relevant events don't appear at ITN/R. If it were to become a list of events that sometimes are sufficiently notable for inclusion at ITN, this could only exacerbate the problem.
From this E3 ITN/C and discussion around, there is agreement that at times trade shows will have ITN-worthy material to be discussion with the cavaet that it doesn't happen every time. So the ITN/C should not be clogged down about discussion "Oh, trade shows aren't appropriate at all" - that was the discussion to have at ITN/R, but instead focus on the one instance.
That's a rationale for including "trade shows" on a hypothetical list of event types generally considered suitable candidates. My main concern is that the aforementioned issue might carry over (with editors opposing nominations when the relevant events don't fall within the categories listed).
This has been a problem that I've seen with other noms, so it's not just getting E3 on there. It's reflecting actually practice at ITN/C, that the ITN/R presence is not a rubber stamp.
It's reflecting the fact that events have been added to ITN/R inappropriately and calling into question the feasibility of maintaining such a list. —David Levy 23:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Then what needs to happen is to split ITN/R up. It's already a mix of highly specific (named events) and generic (like the Space Exploration section) events, which belies the idea that it is meant to expedite certain ITN entries. If it is on the list, the ITN/C should not at all mention "the ITN/R is wrong, oppose". You fix ITN/R then, after the fact, but its there now and it shouldn't affect the ITN/C discussion in that manner. But instead, if its going to have open-ended cases where discussion can happen, then ITN/R's wording needs to reflect this, or the list split up between the highly specific, named cases, and the more general and highly-likely cases but still needs discussion at ITN/C to post. I'm not saying there aren't entries on ITN/R that might need purging, but given the above discussion about CES/E3 which appears in favor of keeping it on, among other cases, the entire approaching right now is wrong and needs to be fixed. That may be a necessary step to recorrect ITN by revamping the entire ITN/R list, but it can't stay that way because it simply doesn't reflect practice. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not defending the status quo. I'm saying that I don't regard your proposed change as an improvement.
I've supported the idea behind ITN/R from the beginning, but its application never lived up to expectations and seems to have only deteriorated with time. It was supposed to simplify the ITN process, but it seems to be having the opposite effect (and I disagree that making it more complicated is the solution). At this point, I'm inclined to deem it a failed experiment. —David Levy 00:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose the real problem is that too many borderline items are on the list. ITNR status should only be given to the most obvious items -- FIFA World Cup final, Super Bowl, etc. I think we should focus on refining the list instead of rewriting ITN procedures. Calidum Sistere 02:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
If there's any hope of making ITN/R work, that seems like the best approach. —David Levy 02:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
We are in the process of developing a draft replacement ITNR list, located here. 331dot (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
That's what I was referring to. Calidum Sistere 03:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so if there is agreement there is a problem with ITN/R now, then I'm going to suggest that there needs to be two lists.

ITN/R needs to be highly specific, named items that there is virtually zero disagreement with for inclusion every time they happen. Things like Nobel prize wins, the results of a democratic's country's national election, the Super Bowl winner. (Conversely this would remove things like the E3/CES stuff where they may be majority agreement to keep now but not virtually everyone agrees). The only purpose that ITN/C here should then serve is to check the blurb and check the article is updated as part of the process. This would require a thorough review of ITN/R to strip out any recurring events that have a modest (not majority) amount of opposition.
There then needs to be a "case book" for ITN. This would cover both specific-named events as well as other broader events as likely candidates but would need discussion. The point of the case book is to settle basic arguments on the possible candidates so that the discussion at ITN/C is about the specific instance. So for example, a possible entry would be for trade shows in general - there was issue that these could be seen as giant commercials, but as others pointed out sometimes key products/news comes out of these. Therefore an entry in this case book would be that trade shows may be ITN but only if there is a unique article for the specific instance of the event, the trade show itself is well covered in media, and the major reveals/announcements from it are similarly well covered. Thus an ITN/C on a trade show should focus if those points are met, and not the worthiness of tradeshows in general at ITN. Similarly, from past experience, we only post the results of major trials at the point of sentencing/judgement, so this can be another entry in the case book about when legal trials of significance should be covered. This case book is just meant to be a guideline to avoid having ITN/C swamped with the same arguments every time similar events come up, making the entire ITN/C process more efficient. There will of course be new cases not covered that appear at ITN/C but that's fine - the case book is meant to avoid long discussions that have been repeated at length before. I will note that the only thing this should really impact at ITN/C is a bunch of shortcuts to summarize an argument; eg, if there is a court case that I put up for ITN/C, I can go "Judgement has been issued on this case, and thus meets ITN/CASEBOOK/TRIAL." (for lack of a naming scheme). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment I still think we should just jettison this whole page, but there apparently exist people who find it useful. With the apparent desire to keep this page, I don't understand why there should be attempts to devalue it. You gave IP98 a hard time for misinterpreting your proposal on WP:ITNT, but I don't read it any differently. I don't understand the point of a list of items that were once on ITN and will undergo the normal process when they occur again. And I don't see anything novel in your alternate suggestion that this list be pared down to those items that are uncontroversial; that was the original intention (although, then again, if they're so uncontroversial, why do we need a list noting that...). -- tariqabjotu 20:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment your first sentence was the the key. "... we should just jettison this whole page..." so let's do it. It's "useful" as an aide-memoire, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - the whole point of ITN/R is to avoid unnecessary debate about importance. Removing that feature would make the list meaningless. If the alternate proposal of scrapping the list is desired, that should be nominated separately. (I would strongly oppose scrapping the list - it helps ITN in numerous ways.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
In what ways does it help ITN? Honestly. I am really curious what we have streamlined by creating this list. There are still several items (e.g. E3) whose notabilities are contested on ITN/C anyway, which inevitably includes the meta discussion about whether people are permitted to oppose an ITN/R item based on importance. And then that leads to another protracted discussion here about whether to remove an item from ITN/R (even though substantial debate at ITN/C ought to be proof enough that it doesn't belong here). And the remaining items on ITN? The ones whose notabilities don't get contested at ITN/C? Well, would there really be a debate if we got rid of this list anyway? Do you really think there will be an issue getting consensus that the Tour de France meets importance criterion? And why are we compelled to post the election of the next President of Suriname on the (nonsense) basis that all countries are equally significant, when stories that people actually care about can be derided as 'tabloid fodder'?

As I said when I proposed killing ITN/R in February, the limiting factor for these ITN/R stories is almost always the update. We do not need a list of uncontroversially notable events, because such events should not be generating, well, controversy on ITN/C anyway. And those that end up doing so don't belong on ITN/R in the first place -- and, thanks to bullish insistence that this page exist, require another time-wasting discussion here to get their grade of notability demoted. -- tariqabjotu 02:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll point out that for non-free media, WP:NFC is serving the same purpose of WP:ITN/R as to avoid extended, repeated discussion on topics that don't need to be discussed ad nauseum. For example, personally, I disagree with how many sporting events ITN covers though I'm fully aware from the history that they are included w/ article updates. As an experienced ITN participate I know it's not productive (and likely disruptive) to attempt to fight that, but that's because I know these have been cleared on ITN/R from past discussion, even if I wasn't past discussion. On the other hand, if I were a new ITN editor, and there was nothing like ITN/R, I would likely try to dispute all the sports entries because there's no clear reason why they are included. But if there was an ITN/R, I could be pointed to that and come to understand the rationals for inclusion and wouldn't dispute these. In other words, WP:ITN/R is a summarized history of ITN that makes it easy for new editors to contribute. I can see why experienced editors see why it's not needed, but I think we need to look past that. This doesn't preclude purging the list of questionable entries, but dumping it entirely is counterproductive for an open-wiki. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no evidence that your fear of ITN/C being flooded with newbies interested in changing the tone of the section is grounded in reality. And, even if it were, it's not clear what the problem would be there. Perhaps we are missing out on stories (and unduly highlighting others) because we're intent on doing what the "regulars" have always wanted to do. That being said, I'd hope you're conscious enough to know, even without ITN/R, that your disinterest in sports is countered by popular interest in certain events. Either way, avoiding this tunnel vision is the primary reason why precedence is generally discounted on ITN/C. It was/was not posted last year is generally not considered admissible. Perhaps it might be useful to maintain a list of recurring events that have just so happened to be posted nearly every year, alongside a list of those recurring events that just so happened to be omitted most years. But I don't foresee the generation of such a list to be any less contentious than what we've got here, nor do I foresee it being any more useful -- as it just implies precedence matters, when most editors already say it does not (except, strangely, where the current ITN/R is concerned). -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Precedence is used all the time at ITN/C, though typically on different items, not necessary recurring ones (eg, when do we post the result of a trial has come from that). Cases are not handled independently of each other, and there is an "old boys" aspect going on that may be fine right now without a lot of turnover but is a short-sighted approach. From someone not that involved in ITN, ITN/R seems to be a very sensible thing to have, so the hesitation to keep it seems like a lack of awareness of perception from outside the process. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

re: "In what ways does it help ITN?" I didn't elaborate since elimination of the list is not what is under discussion. At minimum, it avoids some unnecessary debates and helps people be aware of upcoming events worth writing about that they might not otherwise think of. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I was more active in ITN when ITN/R was first being formulated. IMO it was a good idea, develop a list of stuff where consensus should be clear based on the significance of the event and there is no need for discussion on adding the event. At the time, there were perhaps less people regular active in ITN and as with many things in wikipedia, it developed somewhat organically with limited bureaucracy and a generally fairly receptive method of adding stuff. Unfortunately it's clear we went to far and/or consensus has changed, so some events which are featured no longer have a clear consensus.

Rather than removing the purpose of this list which means we might as well delete it, we should reform this list, whether by having a wide discussion of every item people find dubious or when an item does end up on ITN/C and is sufficiently opposed it be taken here with a view to removal (this probably means we need consensus to keep the item rather than for removal).

To be clear, there will be exceptions when despite a specific occurrence being opposed, the ITN should be on ITN/C, but this will only be when there is something special about that occurrence and we don't need an exception for that. (A bit of an extreme example would be the last Boston marathon.) It clearly should not be the case that there has to be something exceptional about the item for it to be on ITN and an everyday occurrence would lead to the item not being on ITN which this wording would lead to.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The solution to all of this is easy. The consensus for adding items should be "very high", probably higher than RFAs, which means no one should raise a stink -- with good reason -- when the matter is brought up, and the consensus for removal must be "low", which means when a suggestion is opposed -- with good reason -- it should be removed from the list. That means an ITNR list of fewer items... and probably the suggestions at #More "low controversy" sports items and an earlier archived discussion should be respected. –H T D 21:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion proposal: Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe (the "Arc")

The Melbourne Cup, Australia's most prestigious horse racing event, is listed on ITN/R. It would make sense that this horse race, being of equal prestige within its home nation (France), and quite arguably being Europe most prestigious horse race, be listed alongside the Melbourne Cup. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that I know much about horse racing but I'd feel more comfortable seeing this gain consensus through ITN/C before landing on ITN/R. Judging by annual race articles, only one person seems to be regularly updating this and that's just to detail the result. Funny ^Pika! 23:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the previous four years of the year-specific articles have made it to ITN, but anecdotally I know the Arc is a hugely important horse race within Europe (I can't say if it's big in the Middle East or North America). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It probably does not receive much attention in North America, but it does in the Middle East and Asia. Horse racing is trivial in Africa, and Antarctica never really caught on either. Although the members of Dumont d'Urville Station probably tune in :) QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I think it would be best to have this go through ITNC first. Calidum Sistere 03:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I could definitely support it, but as noted it is best to have it pass ITN/C at least once before seeking ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion proposal: Various domestic football competitions

Within the rugby league section, the three largest domestic rugby league competitions, by both revenue and attendance, are listed. One of these league in the National Rugby League. The following top-tier football competitions rank higher in attendance than the National Rugby League: Bundesliga, La Liga, Liga MX, Serie A, Ligue 1, Primera División Argentina, Major League Soccer, Eredivisie, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, J. League Division 1, Chinese Super League, and the Algerian Championnat National. I am not sure if this argument applies to ITN/R, and so therefore I will leave it to consensus to judge. Should all, some, or none of these leagues be admitted as ITN/R entries? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have them go through ITNC individually at first. Calidum Sistere 04:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think it's fair to play a numbers game against less popular major sports. If that were the case we'd be seeing a much less diverse range of items on ITN/R, probably with quite a few centred on one or two sports and concentrated in a particular area of the world. Relying on one method, access to stadia, to gauge support doesn't seem fair either. Some people lack access to home games or otherwise follow their team through other means (TV springs to mind). That does not mean football should outrank rugby, or that we should have a large number of football related items. Judging from past discussions, we usually look at the most popular occurring events within a sport and choose the most prestigious/well known for ITN/R. This helps stem accusations of systemic bias towards a particular sport. It also prevents ITN from stacking up on football items during May, when most of these leagues finish.

I personally think there are enough association football items on ITN/R. The EPL is the only current domestic league on ITN/R but, save perhaps La Liga and the emergence of the Bundesliga, the others aren't as popular worldwide. A previous discussion on this topic in 2011 can be found here. Funny ^Pika! 14:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

After viewing this prior discussion I would like to nominate solely the Bundesliga for inclusion in ITN/R. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Plenty of football stories go up as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Support La Liga, Serie A and Bundesliga It is indefensible to include the English Premier League, but not competitions with similarly high standards and interest in non-English-speaking countries. To do so gives the appearance of systemic bias. While I'm not a soccer fan, I don't find the argument that this would give it too many items persuasive. For better or worse, soccer is, by some distance, the most popular sport in the world. It is appropriate to recognise that in the distribution of sporting items. That does not mean that less popular sports should be excluded, but it is reasonable for soccer to have more items than other sports. Neljack (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

4 soccer items in a week, bias much?

English Premier League ended on 19 May 2013

La Liga ended on 1 June 2013

Serie A ended on 19 May 2013

Bundesliga ended on 18 May 2013

UEFA Champions League Final on 25 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.250.57 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as premature, without prejudice to other similar proposals. I think we should only consider those which have at least been proposed, and ideally posted at ITN already. I've never seen the Algerian Championnat National proposed, for example. And I think attendance is a very poor metric. I'd be in favour of the three that Neljack mentions, and I don't think the IP's objection about timings carries any weight (SCOTUS judgements, anyone? There are plenty of deliberately- or accidentally-synchronised stories that we'd consider seriously for ITN.) But I don't think this proposal is well-formed, and I cannot support it. I'd encourage QSL to withdraw it for now and resubmit it later. I'd still like to see some non-sporting story-types discussed here first, and I think that other sport/nation combinations (Japanese baseball, Scandinavian ice hockey) have sufficient cultural standing that they deserve attention alongside these soccer contests when the time comes. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Alex that it would be better to establish which old items have consensus (and why) before seeking to add new items. I am not against more football in principle, but don't feel now is the most productive time to discuss the issue. (also having a league pass ITN/C first would be a big help). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Space exploration topics for consideration on draft ITNR list

To further the process of creating a draft ITNR list, I am submitting the space exploration topics of the current list for consideration for the draft ITNR list that is being compiled to eventually replace the current list. Those topics are the following:

The launch of manned orbital spaceflights
The first and last launches of any type of rocket
Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article
A country conducting its first successful indigenous orbital launch
The launch of space stations or major components thereof
Arrival of probes (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations

Do we as a community still consider the above sufficiently noteworthy for ITNR? Any changes suggested? One suggestion I occasionally see is that routine manned flights to the International Space Station be excluded from ITNR; I don't necessarily endorse that idea, just putting it out there. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose all I think all of these are things that vary in their notability. They're not like sports events or Nobel Prizes, which always have similar notability. Therefore they should be left to ITN/C to judge based on the particular occurrence. Neljack (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose all - I think these need to be tackled on a case-by-case basis. I love the ISS, but I don't need an ITN update every time it has a crew change. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose all ITNR itself is based on a false premise that prior !votes establish a precedent. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than a philosophical objection to ITNR in general, do you have any opinions about the merits of these items themselves, as the other two posters here have? 331dot (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments above - notability varies considerably between launches. I could in principle support "A country conducting its first successful indigenous orbital launch" and "The launch of space stations or major components thereof" but I am not sure if they are common enough to justify ITNR. While I would support most examples of the rest, I oppose having them on ITNR because notability varies significantly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are sports events given such disproportionate coverage on Wikipedia:ITN?

They are entertainment events, not the traditional types of "news" (head of state election, natural disaster, etc.) that have the potential to impact large portions of the world population.

When I read Wikipedia:ITN, I don't care who won Wimbledon or the Golf Masters or some other sporting event. I'm looking for real news. CNN's headline story (as of 6:30 AM Pacific Time, July 8) is the San Francisco airline crash, while the first mention of Wimbledon is somewhere down the 20th headline. Other major US-based news publications are too far off.

CNN Screenshot

98.210.60.236 (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"I'm looking for real news"... firstly ITN is not a news source. You should be going to CNN for real news, secondly this is a worldwide encyclopedia so saying "I don't care who won Wimbledon" is not going to get you anywhere as there are others that do care. ITN highlights updated articles for items that are currently in the news and to lower systemic bias interest large amount of people (which usually but not always means they are of some worldwide importance). Perhaps you should reconsider why you come to ITN? -- Ashish -g55 13:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and we aim to include stories on ITN that are of interest to a broad population. Although you may not be interested in Wimbledon, many people in different parts of the world are (as is the case for a number of other sporting events). Indeed, there is international interest in the plane crash in San Francisco as well, which is why that is posted too. The order of the stories on ITN is chronological, not based on the order of importance. -- tariqabjotu 13:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

New ITN stories are added at the top. Wimbledon is the most recent addition. Being at the top doesn't imply it's the biggest story. Wimbledon is the fourth CNN story for me. Maybe it depends which country you are in. Many of the other stories in your screenshot are American with very low interest in other countries. Wikipedia is international and Wimbledon is big in many countries but there were no Americans in the singles finals this year. A lot of people Worldwide are into tennis and some other sports. I think it's more problematic that we keep sports stories for so long. It's the same time as other stories but a day after a sports event has completed, those who care already know the result and have usually lost interest in reading more. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(to the original poster) If you are dissatisfied with the ITNR list or what is posted in ITN in general, the way to address that is to participate, such as participating in discussions on nominations (or nominating subjects yourself). Keep in mind that sports stories are "in the news" just as much as some other stories- and saying "I don't care about Wimbledon" doesn't matter, as there are people who do- just as there are people who don't care about the Super Bowl or the Olympics, or even US Presidential elections. Not everyone will like everything. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections as historical

BOLD edit, revert if you disagree. No-one had edited the page for months, so I've tagged it as historical and removed the link from the top of this page. A third-level discussion page seems rather overkill anyways. If these elections need to be discussed, I can't see a good reason why it can't be done here. --LukeSurl^{t c} 00:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion proposal: World Aquatics Championships and IAAF World Championships in Athletics

Non-admin closure. Near-universal support for both events, with decent participation over one month. I'm discounting the only oppose !vote as WP:POINTy and not relevant to this proposal. Adding both. Modest Genius ^talk 14:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am surprised that there is no athletics and swimming in ITN/R and there is plenty for a majority of other sports. These are the biggest events other than the Olympics, considering we successfully got the recent WAC listed and the athletics have started today. Donnie Park (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Support both Big events that get international coverage. My only concern is that I don't like blurbs that just say "X has started/finished in Y", without imparting any real news. I therefore think that posting the end of the tournament (as we did for the recent World Aquatics Championships) would be preferable, since then we can at least include the country that tops the medal table (and any particularly noteworthy achievements, such as Missy Franklin's in the recent one). Neljack (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Support both: As mentioned in the Aquatics ITNC nomination they are two of the three Category A Olympic sports. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Support both as per nom. From a procedural POV, I'd suggest not putting this into effect until after this year's IAAF World Championships in Athletics nomination has been posted (can't imagine much trouble on notability grounds). --LukeSurl^{t c} 20:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Support both It's pretty strange that the World Championships in two of the most popular sports in any terms are underrated to the team sports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Support both (at end of events) - both recently passed with no opposition so I can't imagine them failing in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose both ITNR itself is based on a false premise that prior !votes establish a precedent. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Philosophical problems with the existence of ITNR are not relevant to this nomination, and should be discussed elsewhere. It should be supported or opposed on its merits. Prior !votes are one, but not the only, way to determine its merits. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I daresay you're wasting your breath trying to convince Medeis, but I'm sure whoever closes the proposal will disregard her vote. Neljack (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Support both per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got some nerve giving a mere support "per reasons" while declaring my expressed reason invalid. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to retype the reasons above that I agree with, instead of simply saying I agree with them, just for you. I did not say your reason was "invalid", I said it was not relevant. This isn't a discussion about the existence of ITNR in general or how people arrive at their opinions. This is about discussing whether or not this item should be ITNR. 331dot (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Support IAAF World Championships in Athletics, oppose World Aquatics Championships I've seen the world athletics gain quite a bit of coverage where I'm from, but I've barely seen much from the world aquatics. Just because it happens to fall in the top Olympic revenue share category doesn't necessarily mean it translates into international media coverage. 31.205.31.31 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion proposal: Election of the President of the International Olympic Committee

The President of the International Olympic Committee has a prominent role in the world of sports. She or he has a very visible contribution every two years during the Opening and Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games, events which are followed by hundred of millions, for instance she/he proclaims the Games closed during the Closing Ceremony. In addition she/he is the person who announces the host cities. The election of a new president is a rare event, once every eight or twelve years. Hektor (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Question. If it's such a rare event, does it really need to take up space on ITNR? ITNR is meant for more regularly occurring events. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's nominate this as a regular ITN/C item when it happens this session, then think about ITNR. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment I believe the IOC Presidential election is usually conducted at the same congress at which an Olympic host city is chosen. They can therefore be incorporated into one blurb. I think the election of a new president would probably be important enough on its own, but that can probably be left to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure that the re-election of a president would be sufficiently important by itself. Neljack (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Why the hell do we need to put something on ITN/R that's only going to happen once every dozen years? How about we put Transits of Venus on ITN/R as well? Maybe ice ages? The heat death of the universe? (Ok, that last one isn't recurring.) -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Good arguments have been made above. No need to mention this. Modest Genius ^talk 15:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment I would had love to support it if the election went for every four years but the president instead get an initial eight years plus an extra term of four years, so that makes twelve years in total, unless they die unexpectedly. Donnie Park (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose -per above opposes. Jus da fax 06:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion proposal: World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships, World Artistic Gymnastics Championships and World Figure Skating Championships

As another user said "Category A Olympic sports" in my previous proposal, I discovered that Gymnastics is the third in that category which is not also in ITN/R yet, so I proposed two championships that have a lot of history at the World Championship and the Olympics. I also proposed ice skating as it is one of the biggest sport in the Winter Olympics as I was surprised that it was not being included nor nominated yet. The former two is coming up in a few months time. Donnie Park (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Gymnastics, along with athletics and swimming, is surely one of the most popular sports and always attracts many spectators at the Olympics, but I'm afraid that the gap in the popularity of the Olympic events in gymnastics and the World Championships is so big that it doesn't merit inclusion simply because it's gymnastics. Also note that there are separate World Championships in artistic and rhythmic gymnastics, which further diminishes the significance of the both events. As for the figure skating, the World Championships are surely very significant among the Winter sports, but there are other significant sports like alpine skiing, biathlon and cross-country that must be taken into consideration.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. The gymnastics articles are almost prose-free. That indicates to me that the events are not held in high esteem, at least by Wikipedians. Formerip (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Interest among Wikipedians should definitely not be considered an important factor in overall notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Au contraire. For any sporting event that is among the very most important in the world, so that it might be considered for membership of the exclusive ITNR club, I would expect to see a fair amount of prose, outlining the history of the event, its governance, qualification structures, noteworthy controversies, design of medals, what the actual things are that competitors do etc. But Wikipedians don't seem to have found these events important enough. Granted, Wikipedians only represent a sample of all English-speaking people, but I think its a very good guide. Formerip (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Artistic Gymnastics. I believe it is more popular than Rhythmic based on e.g. the number of Olympic events and coverage in my country.
Weak support the other two. They certainly compare favourably to several of the included sports events.
Naturally, if editors don't care about the events are they won't be posted for quality reasons. Hopefully listing them here may be an extra motivation for creating quality articles on them. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose both ITNR itself is based on a false premise that prior !votes establish a precedent. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Philosophical problems with the existence of ITNR are not relevant to this nomination, and should be discussed elsewhere. It should be supported or opposed on its merits. Prior !votes are one, but not the only, way to determine its merits. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be expressing my opposition, not inviting you to comment on the validity of my opposition. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Show me where I am forbidden to comment on your opposition, and I will stop right now. In such a scenario I would assume you would give me and others the same courtesy. 331dot (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot here. If you oppose the very existence of ITNR, then that is your prerogative. But we discussed this only a few months ago and consensus was to continue with it's use. Stop disrupting discussion to make a point. It is both unhelpful and unproductive. Modest Genius ^talk 15:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Artistic Gymnastics only. It is the more popular of the two and is followed for Olympic prospects. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose on Figure Skating; the Olympics is typically the only time that is followed closely. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer the items go through the regular ITN process at least once. Doing so provides a good chance to evaluate the level of coverage in "real time" rather than trying to gauge it from the past (incomplete archives) or the future (speculation). At the moment, I would lean support for artistic and skating and lean oppose to rhythmic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Support figure skating. Neutral on the other two. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose all. I'm not convinced that any of them are significant or widely-followed enough to justify inclusion. The gymnastics articles themselves are symptomatic of that. None have been posted via ITN/C, and I don't think we should be adding more minor sports so we get into the Gaelic football-style arguments again. Modest Genius ^talk 15:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose all; there haven't been past precedent for posting these regularly through ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C 00:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose all per Modest Genius. Jus da fax 06:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What to do with items on the list that did not have a discussion at ITNR

Formerip said in WP:ITN/C that "If its on ITNR without there ever having been a discussion about it, then it should be treated as a regular nomination". That means that if we're following that, and there's no reason, not to, their listing here should be like in probation until there's a real discussion on their merits, and that additional addition/retention should have near unanimous consensus, since ITNR items should have been 1) previously added at ITN, 2) previously discussed here, 3) there's no opposition to it other than "IDONTLIKEIT". Currently, we've identified 2 items that were added without discussion here:

There could be more. What do to with these? –H T D 10:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting flashbacks to the numerous discussions we've had on this very subject, and related. I recall that I, and others, tried to start "confirmation hearings" for specific ITNR entries, but these were either shut down or shouted down with consensus to keep. I am more than happy to open up specific threads to see if people want to keep or drop the two above, or any others, but this is a path well trod. For all the talk about wanting to clean up ITN and ITNR, when the votes start, editors prefer the status quo in almost every case (I think I was successful in getting Poker dropped at one point) doktorb _words^deeds 11:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We have indeed discussed this sort of thing before; personally my belief is that it depends on how long the item or items were improperly listed; if they have been present for years unobjected to, they have essentially been agreed to by default; if they were placed recently, then they should be removed. As I stated on the Emmy discussion page I have tried to start discussion on a draft list that would replace the current ITNR list so that we would have a list where each item has discussion to back it up. Until some change like that is made, we should simply have a discussion about the merits of retaining the Emmy Awards (or the Ireland football champ.) on the list, if people want that. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@both of you: I'm not asking for "confirmation hearings" right now, but whether:

If there are other similar items in the list.
If we'd disregard their status at ITNR at this point, until there are confirmation hearings.

As for the "confirmation hearings" (great name lol), if the discussion ends in "no consensus", it is removed from the list. No more tactics of stalling discussion to a "no consensus" for an item to be saved. If there's no consensus for retention, then there's no consensus for it to be here; after all, the items are listed here because there's consensus each and every time it goes up. –H T D 13:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As with prior discussions I have participated in on this issue, my belief is that a discussion proposing the removal of any long-standing (i.e. years) ITNR item should be whether or not to remove it, and it should be retained if not removed. If an item has survived for years without being objected to as improperly added, I regard it as being supported by default/acclamation or what have you.

You seem to state that the Gaelic football has indeed been objected to over the years; that combined with the fact it is not the most popular sport in the world puts me towards supporting its removal from the list- but it should gain consensus to be removed. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happens here, I invite others to participate in creating a new ITNR list where every item has discussion to back it up, so this debate is avoided in the future. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This item survived for years because:

It was added without discussion
Then it was nominated in ITN/C, then gets a free pass because it is ITNR, and since it is always updated, it is always posted, no matter the length of opposition.
When it is discussed here, the default "no consensus is retained". Now, as per the discussion that was dug up earlier, it wasn't even closed properly, hence it was retained by default, which is actually worse than "no consensus is retained".
And of course once it sticks here the winner is almost always status quo.

Also, I don't think people would like a new list. No one likes starting back from scratch. –H T D 14:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Has Filmfare Award also been discussed before? Asking because thats a lame entry that needs to go. And i doubt its been featured much anyways. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Since we're being bureaucratic (heh) about this already, can someone dig up the discussion (if any) for this, if it has ever been nominated at ITN/C, and if it has ever been posted. If there has been a discussion and has been posted already, anyone can initiate a "confirmation hearing" for this one. –H T D 14:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been informed that this discussion would have more eyes if this happens at WT:ITN. I'd copy-paste this there if no one objects. –H T D 14:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind discussion happening at WT:ITN. Also, my mistake; the discussion for Filmfare Awards is at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_3#Awards_2. But since then, i.e. 2011 or even before, i couldn't find if any blurb has been presented for the Filmfare Award for Best Film. Did i miss out something that said that blurbs of topics listed at ITNR can be presented even if repeated but not necessarily should be presented? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion proposal: UCI Road World Championships

I can't find a good reason why the World Table Tennis Championships is included and the UCI Road World Championships is not.
1) It is one of the main Olympic sports: reference (Cycling is in Group B, Table tennis in Group C)
2) It is broadcasted worldwide. reference
2b) A quick search on news.google shows it was also in the news worldwide: (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Qatar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, South Africa, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, United States)
3) Participation from 77 nations in 2013. I think (can't find the number) that this are more nations than at the 2013 World Table Tennis Championships.
4) It has a rich history (1st edition in 1921). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that the discussion wrap up on the ITNC page before this be discussed. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. To see the discussion see: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#UCI Road World Championships Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Update The article (2013 edition) wasn't placed in the ITN section, due to the lack of prose of the article. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Rugby is in Group E and we have like 5 events for that, while basketball, in Group B, is the toughest sell ever (lol).
Table tennis is broadcasted in China. It's the #1 sport there.
Table tennis matches are between two "teams"/individuals, unlike cycling where "mass starts are the norm". Therefore, fewer spots are open for ping pong.
Table tennis started in 1926... so it has "rich history" too. Meanwhile, Big Ten Conference football, established in the 19th century, will never ever be posted.

Also for some reason, table tennis had awesome page views, it's best 1-day total was better than cycling's best 1-day total (was actually surprised at this actually), but maybe because it was posted at ITN; cycling had more total page views at the month of the competition, though. –H T D 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would not place much weight on which group Olympic sports are in. That would be quite relevant if we were talking about posting Olympic events from these sports, but we don't post individual Olympic events. When deciding about World Championship events we should look as information about the World Champs, not the Olympics, particularly given that the Olympic categorisation can be misleading about the popularity of the sport. For instance, as HTD noted, rugby is in the lowest Olympic group, despite being a major international sport. That is presumably because (1) it is new to the Olympics (or at least hasn't been there since 1924) and the new sports seem to make up the lowest group); (2) the Olympics are for rugby sevens, which is not the main form of rugby (15-a-side is much bigger); and (3) the Olympics won't be the biggest event for rugby - it will continue to be the (15-a-side) World Cup. Neljack (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

With the reasons mentioned by HTD I understand why table tennis is included (and I was never against that). But I still think due to the popularity of the Road World Championships, the event should be included as well (I didn't hear a reason why it should not be included). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hurling

This should be ITNR, and was recently surprised to find it wasn't. Its in the same category as Gaelic/GAA football/rugby. Popularity is about the same. So not sure why one is there and the other isn't.Lihaas (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing a specific Hurling event(i.e. a National or World Championship)? 331dot (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the All-Ireland championship, the super bowl of Ireland, as the highest competition in the sport(Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

The ITN nomination of this did not pass this year. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/September_2013#Hurling. Why should it be displayed on main page by default every year? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to draft revised list

Per the suggestion in the closed discussion above I have placed the events that have been discussed and passed so far onto this page. I still feel new with how things work here so feel free to change what I have done, move it, etc. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the aim to change the scope/remit of ITN/R, or to simply make sure all items are "accountable" to a discussion? If the latter, there are a fair few items which are on the current list with citations for community consensus (e.g. the Sumo item). LukeSurl^{t c} 09:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The biggest aim is indeed to make sure all items have a discussion where they obtained consensus for inclusion, something which doesn't exist for all items now(or it may have changed). If there are items that had consensus or are otherwise not controversial, they can be proposed much like the above "non-controversial" discussions above. The goal is to create a new list that will replace the current one once said current one has been reviewed. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  - Cool. We could do an "items with recent consenus" list once the discussion above has concluded. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a good idea. I added a section for references so people who are wondering "why is Item X on this list" can look back on past discussions. Hot Stop 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Emmy Award (Best Comedy and Best Drama)

Closing my own proposal as no consensus to remove these Emmy Awards from ITN/R. Thanks to all who participated. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As witnessed at WP:ITN/C recently (link), there has been reasonably strong opposition to the Emmy Awards (strictly I suppose this should be Primetime Emmy Awards) being in ITN/R. This is just a formalisation of that opinion. Please express opinions and arguments below. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this is really a discussion as to whether the awards should be added to ITNR. There never was a prior discussion adding them, and if consensus fails here the default option is to remove the Emmy's. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been at least three years to object to its presence here; it would seem that it was accepted by default and this should be a discussion to remove it(which does indeed seem to be the consensus so far). 331dot (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, 331dot, that's ridiculous. Try telling a bank that's been making overpayments in you favor that since they have been doing it for three years they have to continue doing it in perpetuity. The ITNR guidelines themselves say it is set up for items of demonstrated consensus. The only thing that's been demonstrated here is that admins are fully willing to do whatever they like regardless of the facts. Thefact is there never has been consensus, and it doesn't look like there is now. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep - As noted in that discussion, television arts are woefully underrepresented at ITN/R compared to film and music. Yes, television tends to be more national than film or music, but its not hard to argue how much both US and UK primetime television are propagated around the world. (and remember, things like the Oscars and Grammys are US-centric, just like the Emmys) Hence, I support having the Emmy Primetimes (Comedy and Drama), as well as the BAFTA Television (most likely, Comedy and Drama like the Emmys) as ITN/R, as well as any other national television award where shows of that countries have wide international viewership, though off the top of my head, I don't know of any more. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Masem; top award in television; ceremony is followed by millions who might come here looking for information on winners and/or nominees. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I would not object to simply listing the occurrence of the ceremony and not specific awards, if there is disagreement as to which awards should be in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep a definite keep and i disagree that there was strong opposition. If anything there was quite a bit of support for it. And also per Masem TV is ridiculously under represented on ITN. This should stay in ITN/R -- Ashish-g55 17:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Quite a bit of opposition too, for an ITN/R. As for under-representation, any item can be nominated, including television articles. It doesn't need to be on ITN/R, and what we've seen here is an example of the lazy "support" votes of many who don't actually look at or improve the article to the extent that it's listed, despite being ITN/R. In fact, it's quite possible that having it at ITN/R is doing it no favours since many drive-by supporters just say "support per ITN/R" and move on, just like this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  - There is no requirement that one must add something to an article in order to cast a valid opinion on a nomination. Just because people do not do so does not make them 'lazy'. And if you have evidence that people giving their views do not read the articles nominated, then call them out on it, but don't generalize and assume people do it. Instead of criticizing 'drive by supporters' why not encourage them to remain? Many of them might not realize that ITNR nominations don't require support, only a review of article quality. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  - Most of the opposition was "This was just added to ITN/R without discussion", while the other factor was the nationalistic aspect of the Emmys. We can solve the first right now in this discussion, and we're debating on the second if the Emmys (and BAFTAs and any other TV awards someone wants to throw out there) have appropriate international interest. I know for a fact that Americian audience do pay attention to BAFTAs. (A counter example would be that while Canada has its own set of national television awards, they rarely get coverage in the US even). --MASEM (t) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  - (e/c) You're missing the point. If an article is ITN/R, and someone drives by and says "support", they should at least have the integrity to check that the update is adequate (and I'm not referring to 3/5 update) and in keeping with the article. Most don't, and in fact I see far too many "Support" votes with no explanation; this is explicitly discouraged by the ITN instructions. And yes, you make one useful point that many don't realise that all articles at ITN/C need to be updated, not just those at ITN/R. Those votes should be discounted, but as I said, ITN/R currently seems to actively harm these articles' chances of main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    - Drive by ITN/R "keeps" happen all the time, so that's an argument for removing ITN/R or rejecting !votes that don't examine the article, but not against this particular item on ITN/R. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      - Your comment speaks for itself, thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
        It does- your point does not have to do with the merits of this item's presence on ITNR. If you oppose the existence of ITNR, then propose its removal (which has been tried and failed); If you have evidence that those !voting on nominations have not read the article, then point that out. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Remove. This fits squarely with domestic news. The Oscars generate a huge amount of interest around the world and give awards to productions that people around the world consume in large numbers. The Emmies are just not the same. From a UK perspective, one of the shows that would have been mentioned in this year's blurb is broadcast on a channel called Sky 1, which has a 0.8% viewing share [4], and the other is only available via Netflix. It just wouldn't have meant much as a story to people outside the US. Formerip (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I can argue that many of the sporting event news doesn't garner nearly the same international interest as the Emmys and they should be removed too, but that's not what is being asked nor would I call for that. I agree we can't be too ingrained on ITN/R topics that only extend to a nation's borders and no farther, but at the same time, we can't expect every ITN/R to have worldwide consequences otherwise very little would be posted. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  - There's enough news of worldwide interest around to keep ITN going. If there are sporting events on the ITNR list that are only of interest in their home countries then then, you know, OTHERSTUFF, nominate them for removal. But this doesn't apply to things we regularly post like the NBA or the Premier League - there's a difference between domestic sport (OK) and sport which only one country is interested in (not OK, IMO). Formerip (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    - And the point is that the interest in the Emmys are not just limited to just the US. BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, Indian Express, etc. That's about the same amount of range and coverage things like the Grammys and Oscars get. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      - Sure, but range and coverage is a different matter to profile and interest. The Oscars are usually broadcast live in the UK (even though they are on pretty late) and will often make the front pages. No-one ever has a discussion about what they think will win an Emmy. Formerip (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
        This isn't live in the UK? On any channel? –H T D 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
        
        A non-argument for being on ITN/R. The topic is covered internationally, maybe not with the immediacy of a live broadcast, but appearing in the next day's papers is reasonable enough for an event that otherwise would be late night/early morning for most of the rest of the world. I don't disagree the Oscars have a wider influence, but that's not reason to ignore the Emmys. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
        It was you that was comparing news coverage to the Oscars. I'm just pointing out that there is no real comparison. It's possible to find widespread global coverage of all sorts of news, but that's no real indication of how much global interest there is in the story. Formerip (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
        Because the question was begged "is there international interest" and the answer is clearly yes. Right, you can probably find international cover of minor national events if you look hard enough, but finding those sources I used as an example was a one stop shop at Gnews, showing the topic is nowhere near obscure. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
        The question isn't really whether there is international interest, it's whether there is much. I don't think there's enough. Here, this is a minor entertainment story and basically foreign news. There might be more interest in a year with more British winners or an actress in a dress that will sell newspapers. But it's exactly that sort of year-on-year variability that means this should be considered on a year-on-year basis. Formerip (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Remove not posted this year, no evidence of why it was on the list to start with, very weak article year-on-year, perhaps to some people this is the "television Oscar" but it doesn't live up to that, as Formerip says, it's hardly groundbreaking outside the US. Simply put, if this is really notable enough for the main page, let's see how it goes next year not being an ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Adequate update is not a criteria for inclusion in ITN/R. Its a criteria for ITN. Most US TV shows (if not all) have atleast some worldwide audience and Emmy are the awards for them which also gives them worldwide attention. It may not be at Oscars level but, given the fact that TV basically does not get represented on ITN, this should remain on ITN/R -- Ashish -g55 18:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

On what do you base the assertion "perhaps to some people this is the "television Oscar" but it doesn't live up to that"; that's just an opinion and an IDONTLIKEIT without evidence. The Emmys get much attention and news coverage, and not just in the US. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove rewards for American television shows is to narrow and shallow a category to deserve automatic listing. It's not like the Oscars, which have international cachet and a narrower focus on actual top industry leaders. The awards can always still be nominated and stand on their own strength if it's merited. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that why international news outlets cover them?(such as the ones Masem linked to above) Because it's too narrow a subject? 331dot (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the Emmys are open to TV shows shown in America, rather than just American TV shows (and British shows, at least, have had some success there). In contrast the BAFTAS are (apart from the international award) limited to British shows. 138.38.73.184 (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove from ITNR. Let it be treated like any other planned event and come to nomination to gauge it's worth; article's as well as the blurb's. Not a global phenomenon to have automatic listing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

On what do you base that claim(not a global 'phenomenon')? 331dot (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

On basis of what i see in the part of globe that i live in. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not being global enough is not a valid point for removal from ITN/R as that is not a criteria even for ITN (read the "do not" of ITN/C). Judge it based on its significance in its field... which in this case is pretty high for the field of Television. If you can refute that then we have more of a valid reason -- Ashish -g55 13:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Its nothing in Indian television. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't hear anything about the sport of cricket in my part of the world, but several Cricket tournaments are ITNR (including one specific to India) as it is popular in other parts of the world. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two specifics about Indian cricket over there; IPL and Indo-Pak match. And you said it right; that it is popular in other parts of the world. Show us how Emmy is popular similarly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Masem already linked to a few news stories around the world above; here's a few more: The Guardian (UK), Le Monde (France) News.com.au (Australia) CBC (Canada), Times of India, China Daily, Xinhua (China again), Channel 24 (South Africa); do I need to keep going? This isn't just a US news item and is followed all over the world. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Those links demonstrate only that there is not an impermeable barrier around the United States preventing its news from being reported on abroad. Formerip (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Those news outlets do not post stories just for the sake of doing so, they do it because they think their readers want to know about them- hence, they are followed around the world. It clearly is not just a "domestic news" story as you claim. I'm still waiting for some evidence (not necessarily from you) supporting the claim this is not the top-tier television award, as is also claimed above. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You cannot base that the awards are followed around the world necessarily from these news reports. The Australian newspaper reported it because the Australian director Jane Campion did not win for her show. & the Indian newspaper reported because Tina Fey's costume malfunctioned. Also i don't know how to do it, but one must judge the quantum of news from print editions only and not electronic one. The print one is the real one where material really related to reader's is printed. In e-version its mostly copy-paste-ry and getting more hits in Google that counts and is just for the sake of covering global stuff. For example; its absolutely wrong to conclude that Indians care about Khloé and Lamar's wedding situation because Times of India, the largest selling newspaper has written about it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The same logic would prompt us to remove several of the sporting events listed that only have national/regional participation (NFL , NBA, cricket tourneys, etc.); that is, for example, the NYTimes covers championship cricket events but in the same light that these international papers covered the Emmys. No one is asking for that. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

OSE! You can go and start discussions to remove other listings as well and i will support on some of those. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion discusson, we're talking what goes on the front page, and in this case, OSE is a very valid augment to avoid bias. I would be very disillusioned to think that I could nominate the Super Bowl ITN/R for removal from here and expect it to happen, and I dare not, but the point is that the "interest" in the Super Bowl is nearly equivalent for the Emmys, and to say that the Emmys don't have enough interest for an ITN/R while the Super Bowl does is, frankly, a BS argument. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep equivalent of other highest-level awards for different media (Grammy, Oscar, Tony, etc.). --Jayron32 14:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- [citation needed] to equate this to an Oscar. Seems like an inflated view.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how you got "equate this to an oscar" out of what Jayorn said.. are there any other television awards that are considered of higher level than Emmy's? -- Ashish -g55 16:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I mis-read the bit where he said "equivalent of other highest-level awards for different media (Grammy, Oscar....)". And one could argue BAFTAs, but that's irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

BAFTAs are probably just as important to the television industry as the Emmys. The question is, are there any higher awards that that? The next few awards for television that I'm aware of, like the Golden Globes, the People's Choice Awards, or things like the MTV Awards, are definitely mostly of interest in the national level and typically aren't considered as with much merit as the Emmys. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What Masem said. Are there television awards that generate more press than the Emmys? If so, we should replace the Emmys with those. If there are not, then we should keep it.--Jayron32 18:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Yes, the BAFTAs generate more than the Emmys. Done deal. Anyway, once again it's a little bit of the systemic bias kicking us in the ass, the US pwns the world when it comes to television awards. I now see why so many non-US contributors are leaving the project. Anyway, I procedurally nominated this ITN/R as it was wholesale rejected at ITN/C for being utter tripe, it didn't get posted, maybe that says something. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-U.S. contributors leave the project because U.S. contributors improve articles they have knowledge and interest in? Tell me more about this theory of yours. It intrigues me that people leave because other people are interested in things that they know about. I want to know more about this. --Jayron32 00:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, non-US contributors leave because there's the inexorable tide of USA-USA-USAism that makes many feel that daring to suggest we should be more global is a bridge too far. You actually know that, it's just time you admitted it to yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the forum to fight the systemic bias battle. Even if it was, an affirmative action program to exclude US content only shifts the problem, it doesn't solve it. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never done any of that in my life. You must have me confused with a different person. --Jayron32 14:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is doomed to fail. This should be a "retention proposal", and with the stipulation that only a "consensus keep" would have it retained; "no consensus" or "consensus remove" means it is removed. In this case, "consensus keep" and "no consensus" would have this retained, while only a clear "consensus remove" removes this. –H T D 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not correct. There's no real difference between a retain vote and a remove vote. In the past, removal discussions ending in no consensus have meant the removal of the item from the list, in the absence of a prior consensus. Formerip (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is probably true on more recent discussions. Which is nice to see. –H T D 15:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is sad and unfortunate since every single item on this list could eventually be stricken through attrition by failing to reach a "keep consensus". On AFD no consensus is not delete, why should this be different? Those whom are vocal opponents to the existence on ITN/R will certainly champion the "no consensus == delete" refrain, but that's not what Wikipedia does. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove The difference between this and the Academy Awards or the (film) BAFTAs is that they are open to films from all countries, whereas this is limited to TV programmes from one country. If we are to include this, then we should also include not only the TV BAFTAs, but television awards from other countries such as India, France, Mexico, Brazil and Germany. Neljack (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Several of the sports tournaments or championships listed on ITNR are also limited to one country. In this case, the Emmys get more attention than ceremonies in other countries, much as some of those single-country tournaments get attention in other countries. There is no worldwide TV awards ceremony, but the involvement of top Hollywood actors (many of whom are known worldwide) in the Emmys raises its profile above other similar ceremonies in other nations. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the Emmys get more attention than, for instance, the (TV) Baftas? If so, please present that evidence and I will certainly consider it. Neljack (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I only know that media around the world had stories about it, which news outlets wouldn't do if they didn't think there readers/viewers weren't interested in the subject or it was unimportant. This being In the news that matters as much as any other criteria that could be found. I've never heard of the "baftas" until you just mentioned them- which I realize means little here- but we mention their awards in film in addition to the Oscars(and Canadian and German awards). If you're saying they are equivalent to the Emmys- and I apologize if that isn't you're point- then I would be open to listing those here as well. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll further point out that if this is removed, television will have no listing on ITNR, while we list more obscure (relative to TV) events/awards such as the Sakharov Prize, Man Booker Prize, Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom (a one-country designation), and others. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that at least one television award has to be there on ITNR? We don't have any for Kabaddi World Cup. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Television is a recognized major art media around the globe, like film, books, poetry, and music, all which we've included top-tier honors as ITN/R. It makes no sense to shun it simply because the major awards are generally based on national productions, particularly as the line of what is national broadcast is weakened with online streaming. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, "kabbadi" does not have the reach of television. US programs are broadcast all over the world. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

By my count, kabaddi and sepak takraw should easily pwn any of the Gaelic sports that is/was listed at ITNR by interest and number of followers and players. –H T D 18:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep - This is Wikipedia-en. Emmys are the top TV awards show in English. It's a top story in the news each year. It should be ITN/R if we have to have this list. No I don't watch it, or much TV at all. Jus da fax 00:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We are here to be a global encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Also what is the basis for saying that the Emmys are bigger than the (TV) BAFTAs? Neljack (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Being a global encyclopedia doesn't mean we ignore our audience and not post stories about one area they might be interested in, which is essentially the de facto global awards ceremony. If you're saying the BAFTAs are equivalent to the Emmys, that would seem to be an argument for including them in ITNR, not excluding the Emmys. If we can have the Poet Laureate of the UK we can have the Emmys and/or BAFTAs(which don't seem to get a great deal of attention in the US). 331dot (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What he said. You don't make Wikipedia better by intentionally excluding good, quality content merely because it is from a part of the world you don't want to include. The way to make Wikipedia better is to, yourself, improve content about parts of the world you feel are underrepresented. That's how Wikipedia becomes more global, not by deliberate exclusion, but by intentional inclusion. --Jayron32 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

on that note i would probably support putting BAFTA on ITNR as well instead of removing Emmys -- Ashish -g55 14:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just like I said years ago, this gives us disproportionate coverage on US and UK topics to the complete and utter ignorance of other topics elsewhere. It's probably interesting to note that there should have been more people that had seen a season of a TV show like Meteor Garden, than say a season of EastEnders. –H T D 15:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We should be considering both the geography and the field, not just geography. While adding the Emmys may further disproportionate ITN/R towards US/UK topics, it is also adding to a major field (television arts) that is woefully underrepresented at ITN in general.--MASEM (t) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I await the nomination of topics not presently covered well or from underrepresented areas; the lack of such topics is not a reason to exclude any topic. Instead of arguing against topics for that reason, you should be nominating and advocating for topics you believe should be present. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is ITNR should have very clear consensus; in theory, the reason why it is listed here is because everyone agrees that it should breeze through ITN/C discussions every time it is nominated. For example, if the Emmys are going to be opposed every time it is nominated, how sure are we that the BAFTAs and the Asian Television Awards aren't? Would it be ironic if the latter two breeze through while the former does not? –H T D 16:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Total or near unanimity is not required for ITNR; there will always be opposition to virtually any event listed. I don't see the Asian Television Awards up for consideration for inclusion in ITNR; I would be happy to consider it. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "Total or near unanimity" but just any consensus would be easily judged upon by the admin; discounting of course the IDONTLIKEIT opposes. –H T D 18:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I'm afraid that Jayron32 misunderstands my position. My comment was merely a response to Jusdafax's arguments that (1) "[t]his is Wikipedia-en" (implying, I presume, that preference should be given to items from English-speaking countries); and (2) that the "Emmys are the top TV awards show in English". I have no desire to "exclud[e] good, quality content merely because it is from a part of the world [I] don't want to include." I certainly do believe we should include content from the US and have no prejudice against US items. I support removing the Emmys because I don't think that entertainment or cultural awards limiting to one country should generally be included (I would support removing the UK Poet Laureate too), and if we did we would end up having to include too many TV awards. 331dot says that they are "essentially the de facto global awards ceremony", which is precisely where I disagree. The Academy Awards are a de facto global awards ceremony - they are open to films from all countries, and while many other countries have film awards the Oscars are regarded as the most important worldwide. The Emmys, in contrast, are only open to TV programmes from one country (despite the fact that TV is big worldwide), so I am mystified as to how it can be considered "the de facto global awards ceremony." I suggest that if you ask people from Britain, India, France, Germany, Japan etc whether they regard the Emmys as "the de facto global awards ceremony" for TV, you will find that it does not have the status you suggest. Neljack (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
See, I take the opposite position: I would rather we did open up ITN more, and placed a much greater emphasis on article quality when making decisions. I would be totally in favor of posting articles on, say Indian Television Awards if we had a good article about them. ITN should be "Current events that we have really good articles about" and not "stuff that people who see themselves the gatekeepers of elitism felt was worthwhile for us to post here". --Jayron32 02:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If an objection to an event being from a single country isn't a valid objection for a regular nomination, I don't think it should be here, either. Even the Super Bowl only has to do with a single country (only US teams in the US) so should that be removed, too? 331dot (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with including events from a single country if they are of sufficient international interest - as the Super Bowl is. I don't think the Emmys are of the same of level of international interest. Neljack (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is why you can read about them in most countries on the globe........as I linked to above. I can't say the same about other similar ceremonies, at least from what I have seen. So television gets no mention on ITNR despite being as prominent an art form as film or novels? I'll also second what Jayron said above. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, if we're talking about interest outside the U.S. (and Canada), the Emmys would easily pwn the Super Bowl. U.S. TV shows are everywhere; for example, channels that air these shows would cite the Emmys in their promos. Meanwhile, the NFL isn't that watched elsewhere. The global audience for the Super Bowl must be in the 90% for the U.S. –H T D 14:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Super Bowl is widely reported upon by media around the world; the Emmys are not to the same extent. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is probably easy to say that both are not that "widely reported upon by media around the world", with the Emmys having more coverage outside the U.S. vs. the Super Bowl. –H T D 08:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But they are reported on around the world nevertheless. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So are lots of things. That doesn't mean post them all. Neljack (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Lots of things" are not viewed by millions of people around the world such as television programs(even just American ones). 331dot (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

remove per §§Dharmadhyaksha(Lihaas (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

Keep THese are the top English language TV awards (or at the very least on par with the BAFTAs; most of the shows honored have a global audience.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal proposal: Filmfare Awards (Filmfare Award for Best Film)

No discussion for three months and no consensus to remove these from ITN/R. Thanks to the contributors. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Filmfares, the popular choice Bollywood awards of India are not really much of hype in India itself. Are they covered in news? Yes! Are they covered on front page of newspapers? No; unless its a Page 3 publication. Are they covered throughout India? No! Many states in India don't even promote Bollywood films over their own regional film industries. Also we must note that since its addition in the list post discussion Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_3#Awards_2 of March 2011, the awards have been presented twice; in 2012 and 2013. And on none of the instances the articles have been displayed on main page. I would hence propose removal of this from ITNR list. If at all the event turns out to be extraordinarily different and gets news-worthy, (eg. if 70% awards are bagged by a certain film) we can still present the article after following the normal ITN procedure. But it hardly deserves to get a default space. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Support removal. Dharmadhyaksha makes a good case; it makes sense to me. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Support: Filmfare awards are given by a private organization in India. The official award in cinema from Indian government is National Film Awards. However, as of now both of them do not deserve any place on the first page. Usually NFA are talked less as the recipients are scattered across the country and are covered in the regional media based on the award winners. It gets bigger coverage only when bollywood wins any award. FF should be definitely taken down as it does not represent the Indian cinema. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I find Dharmadhyaksha's arguments convincing but I'd like to see more input, particularly from people who know Indian cinema. These are the top awards for Indian cinema (that's what's stated in the article) and it's important to feature cinema events outside the US/UK etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple of further points--I don't think that the fact that the awards are not covered throughout India necessarily disqualifies them. India is a large and very diverse country. India has many languages so it's logical that there are regional film industries catering to non-Hindi-speakers. We know that Bollywood is the largest film industry in the world by certain measures, even if there are competing regional film industries in other Indian states. Also, the lack of on-wiki activity should not be presented as evidence that the awards are not suitably notable. This is most likely Systemic bias. So without further discussion, my !vote is Oppose removal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as a point of information only, the author of this proposal and one of its supporters are both from India, so I think any systemic bias issue is minimal here(as opposed to if the author was from the US or Europe). 331dot (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

By Systemic bias I'm referring to the argument that the Filmfare awards haven't been nominated since they were added to ITNR. That reflects a lack of on-wiki activity, not a lack of notability. It's well established that topics outside the English speaking world get less coverage on Wikipedia. I do appreciate that two editors in this discussion are from India but I'd like to see a bit more input from others--it's possible that other people familiar with Indian cinema have a very different point of view.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Though I am open to further information, my inclination is to oppose this per Johnsemlak. I have seen the Filmfare Awards described as the Indian equivalent of the Oscars. They certainly get lots of coverage, even if not in all parts of India (which is, as Johnsemlak points out, a very large and diverse country). Neljack (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Apart from Japanese baseball (which is a bit of an oddity in the ITNR list), this is the only national event from a country that is not primarily English-speaking that is ITNR. That either means we should get rid of it for the sake of consistency or keep it in the name of countering bias. Both of those options would make sense to me. Formerip (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time Man of teh Year

Should we make this an ITNR event? Its been aropund awhile and is broadly talked about(Lihaas (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)).

I'd like to see how it does in a regular nomination before even considering it for ITNR. I'm not yet entirely convinced it would be good for that even- a person selected by a group of magazine editors. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)