Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Removal proposal: Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final (redux)

Closing my own proposal with no consensus to remove the Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final from ITN/R. Thanks to everyone who contributed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Seconding the closure. I was about to make the same conclusion. --Tone 09:34, 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.

Following the unsuccessful nomination of the 2014 Winter Olympics ice hockey final at WP:ITN/C, 331dot has indicated that he would like to see a proposal to remove this item from ITN/R. It seems only reasonable to follow that up, so here we are. Useful background may include a previous discussion which was never closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose as this is normally one of the clear highlights of the Winter Olympics, and 0.25 items per year is 4 times less than what Gaelic football has. Nergaal (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per my already stated reasons. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove as this will always coincide with the end of the Winter Olympics, we will always have issues to explain to the vast majority of people not interested why one individual sport's gold medal game should share the blurb or share ITN with the closing ceremony. "Clear highlight" is 100% point-of-view, personal opinion. I couldn't care less who was in the ice hockey, nor could the vast majority of those reading Wikipedia, many more would be interested in downhill ski-ing or figure skating or skeleton or curling or biathlon. Moreover, the fact that some have voted to oppose it this year because of who was competing for it makes it perfect candidate for ITN/C, not ITN/R, if "who's in it" matters. Also, this should have been removed in the previous discussion where a clear consensus was not acted upon. But we are where we are. One note, could those "opposing" the removal please demonstrate the consensus which was formed to actually include it at ITN/R? It would be helpful to know that it wasn't just added by one user some years ago because "it seemed like a good idea"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • So there's been no consensus to include it at all, as I suspected. Not caring about it enough as a community to form a genuine consensus to include it is a perfect reason to remove it. Six years to remove it has finally come home to roost, if an ITN/R has massive opposition at ITN/C, you should be able to find your answer. The unfortunate thing is that many of those who frequent ITN/C do not frequent ITN/R, as such we'll usually end in stalemate and have a pointless ITN/R that'll never be posted because it's heavily opposed at ITN/C. In fact, why not just add the curling final, the women's ice hockey final, the double luge, to ITN/R? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The ice hockey result was posted in 2010 as well. This item could have been removed from the list after it was created(it was not), it could have been removed in 2010(it was not), it could have been removed after the last discussion(it was not). If it is now, I respect that, but it seems until now to have been accepted by default. If you want to draw more attention to the discussion, I think there are means for you to do so. If you have an actual proposal to add the events you mention, I'd be happy to explain why I wouldn't support adding them, but I won't tie up space here doing so. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it's just a symptom of how badly thought out ITN/R has been over the years and the tacit acceptance of a couple of editor's ideas becoming written in stone. This proposal will fail, the good news being we'll have to wait until 2018 before we have to reject it all over again, and it's not worth the bytes being generated. What would be the decent thing would be to remove it entirely from ITNR and allow ITNC to determine whether it's worth being included, particularly, as I've noted, as some voters believe that ITNR should actually depend on who's in the final. Best laugh I've had all day. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for removal, although I'm not sure why we need to have this discussion in triplicate. No Olympic event should be singled out as ITNR for any reason. Olympic gold is undoubtedly a big deal within the world of ice hockey, but that doesn't not make it unique as an Olympic event. And, although I'm willing not to disagree that it is a big deal for North America, that's the opposite of a good reason for making it ITNR. It certainly doesn't have an especially high profile where I live, compared to, say, curling or skeleton. I guess it mainly depends on where your home country has a shot at a medal. Formerip (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. This is clearly the the effective world championship in Ice Hockey, and if it were a separate event going on at the same time it would be ITNR without question. It should be ITNR and should be posted this year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Not according a strong consensus against its posting. Vive la revolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Some of the oppose rationales are patently ridiculous, such as the one you cited above that the ITNR status should depend on who makes the final.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you need to re-read the discussion. It was a supporter who said it shouldn't be posted this year because of the finalists. That's how stupid this is. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Ah, fair point. Poor rationale regardless.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Removal As i stated in ITNC. Regardless of Canada winning... As far as ice hockey goes olympics final is the most watched and most popular game. Much more so that Stanley cup final. It is an international event carrying a lot significance (even if you only count that significance for Canada). An event watched by upwards of 80% population of a country should not just be ignored given the amount of sports stuff we post on ITN. I would rather not see any of the IIFH world championships and only have one olympics final for ice hockey -- Ashish-g55 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. But franky, we might as well just MFD this page if people at ITN/C won't respect it. Resolute 15:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Respect comes to those who deserve it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Get off your high horse, Rambling Man. Resolute 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • That's The Rambling Man to you ...lute. Respecting ITN/R items which have never had an active consensus is a part of the ongoing evolution of ITN/R, which has needed a shake-up for some years. Sadly, this item is just one of a number of news items that a couple of blokes thought would be cool to include six years ago, but here we are, with the item being massively rejected at ITN/C. Speaks volumes, no need for it to be personal, and hey, we can do this all again in 2018 should we still be fortunate enough to be here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I guess it isn't British or American enough for most of you, so it should be removed, eh? "Massively rejected" in a remarkably short discussion, yet was beginning to equalize after the hasty withdrawl. And, of course, removing this from ITN/R is similarly "massively rejected" at this point as well. So where does that leave us? Resolute 16:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
            • As I said, it leaves us waiting to have this pointless discussion once again in 2018. Woo! Perhaps it'll be USA v Russia then and we can all get excited about it and claim it to be somehow more important than Sweden v Canada. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove. This event may well be more important than the the world championships, but so what. Olympic alpine skiing is the most important alpine skiing and Olympic skeleton is the most important skeleton. Why should we single out one event? Here the Premier Olympic Event™ is either the men's cross-country skiing 4 × 10 km relay or the 5 mile, but I personally prefer biathlon. The Ice Hockey final is only broadcast on the main channel as it is the only thing happening, if it had coincided with e.g. any cross-country skiing, alpine skiing or biathlon event it would be relegated to a secondary channel.
    This highlights the problem; which events matter most is largely based on your geographical location, with modifications based on personal taste and unforeseen medal chances. The logical choice is to post blurbs for the ceremonies and for rarer news like Bjørndalen's record. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment just for the sake of clarity, the original ITN/C discussion has been re-opened. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal There is no justification for having this as the one Olympic event that is singled out for special mention. Surely nobody can seriously contend that it is the most internationally popular Olympic event - that would be the 100m sprints. So then the argument seems to be that the best men's ice hockey players only play in the Olympics and not the world champs, whereas in other major events the top athletes compete in both the world champs and the Olympics. However, that argument would only make sense if we posted the events in question at the world championships. But you will search in vain for when we have posted the world champions in the 100m sprints, the 100m freestyle, downhill skiing, etc. The fact that the best players in men's ice hockey don't play in the world champs, while the best sprinters complete in both the world champions and the Olympics, can hardly be an argument for posting both the Olympics and the world champs in ice hockey but the 100m sprints in neither. If anything, it would support posting the 100m sprints (and, by similar reasoning, the downhill skiing, the 100m freestyle, etc) in both the Olympics and the world champs, and the men's ice hockey only in the Olympics. But nobody seems to be arguing for that, which isn't surprising since it would involve a big increase in the number of sporting events that we post. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There is compelling rationale for both sides. On one hand, this is certainly one of the premier events of International Hockey, certainly on par with the Stanley Cup and equivalent to the World Cup for soccer. To that extent, this would seem undoubtedly ITN/R-worthy. But on the other hand, having the timing of the gold medal match always coinciding with the end of the Winter Games and the closing ceremonies creates a logistical quagmire that would require multiple Olympic-themed blurbs appearing at the same time. That would be a bit much since the aim of ITN is to "...reflect recent or current events of wide interest" and not just the biggest sports news of the day. In the end, we have to prioritize and I think it would be a difficult argument to make that the gold medal final of a single event is more important than the closing ceremonies of the entire games. So which blurb do you go with? The hockey game or the closing ceremonies? In the end, ITN/R shouldn't trump common sense or the greater goals of ITN to appeal to a wide-interest base and not just one category of interest (such as sports fans). AgneCheese/Wine 01:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. I seriously don't get what the big deal is about having it listed. It's the premier event in all of hockey. Shall we remove the FIFA World Cup too? Hot Stop 02:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware the FIFA World Cup is not part of the Olympics, so no. Neljack (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the point is that the ice hockey tournament is equivalent to the FIFA Cup in terms of Hockey; the world championships of ice hockey do not have the stature that the Olympic tournament does. (Ask an average sports fan to name the last world champion and ask someone to name who won the Gold medal) Interestingly the world ice hockey championship was actually part of the Olympics for many years. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, as part of its existence at itn/r was for the reason that it is the iihf final. Clearly not the case. So it literally is just one sport picked from the Games. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In most sports the Olympics is more important than the world championships (at least that is the general perception in my country). Despite the fact that in most other sports the same athletes take part, it is clear that the attention they receive in Olympic years is somewhat to hugely increased. Furthermore, if you mess up you have to wait 4 years rather than one or to, so becoming an Olympic champion is rarer and would tend to more prestigious. (This naturally has economic consequences, the value of an Olympic champion for sponsorships often exceed that of a world champion.) 62.249.160.48 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Clearly there's no consensus for the retention of this item so... –HTD 01:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • How's that exactly? This is a removal proposal, not a retention proposal. Even if it is, it looks about even to me. 331dot (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • ITNR is about consensus. What I see here is that there's no consensus for a removal, and no consensus to retain as well. Lists on ITNR are supposed to be "automatic postings because almost everyone would agree that it'll be posted". If there is a significant number of people who think otherwise, then it has to be removed. Well, that has been The Rambling Man's argument from the start, purging the list of all the trouble-making components that provoke long discussions. In either case, ice hockey is the most visited article among the interdependent team sports in the 2012 and 2014 Olympics:
  • There's a reason you won't see much other events during the men's ice hockey final that your TV channel will find a reason not to show that crap: because it's one of the most popular events. The reason why the cross-country events are held on this day too is because they're a part of the closing ceremony program, and apparently the IOC loves these grind out "marathons" (oh! so manly!) as a part of the closing ceremonies. In the last 3 Winter Olympics, men's ice hockey, bobsleigh and the men's cross country skiing are on the final day of competition. If anyone argues that the reason why most people watch the Winter Olympics is due to bobsleds, I'd be waiting outside wielding a bat. #kidding –HTD 01:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Those stats clearly make the point that readers (the people we are supposed to care about) care about the hockey tournament. Just an FYI, the articles on the opening and closing ceremonies from this year's event, which were displayed prominently on the front page, drew about 200,000 views -- one fourth of what the hockey tournament received. Hot Stop 02:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The hockey tournament had a benefit of having games during the entire run of the Olympics; the ceremonies only happened once each, even with the added benefit of being posted in the main page... –HTD 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the highest profile regular competition for national teams in a major, international sport. There ARE other such international hockey competitions, but this is clearly the most important among them. We should be posting these results for that reason. This needs to be on ITNR. --Jayron32 02:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment strikes me as a little absurd that we're arguing to keep this as ITN/R when there's been a clear demonstration at ITN/C that it should not be. We now a different audience appearing and clamouring for it to be kept (although some only want it to feature in ITN if the teams in the final are somehow more notable than this year's pairing). Looking forward to 2018! Funny old world. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I understand that the intent of most of the editors that want to post this item is to post an important (the most important?) ice hockey tournament. Normally this would be a no-brainer. In this particular case I feel that the consequence of posting it is completely overlooked: posting sends a clear implication that it is the most important Olympic event. Regardless of intent this is deeply unfortunate and should be avoided. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Every event posted has people who feel it is important and people who feel it isn't important. I get what you are saying, but there are reasons it could be considered important(it is always the last medal event and has no other events scheduled at the same time, I think). 331dot (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Essentially my point is that ice hockey is not the appropiate context to judge this item. In an Olympic context, while clearly important (e.g. in Canada and Sweden), it is not sufficiently important to be the only Olympic event we post. It is especially problematic as it is chosen based on subjective criteria. An event being part of the closing ceremony could justify a combined blurb (though I still think it is an inferior option to not highlighting any event). 62.249.160.48 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nobody is saying that this isn't important; what we're saying is that it's not uniquely important among Olympic events, so there's no justification for posting it and no other Olympic events. Neljack (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • You may not agree with the justification, but it does exist. This event is different from other events. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal per The Rambling Man and Neljack. Enough of this. Jusdafax 11:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's as clear cut as that; there are many who want it to remain. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove. Unfortunately, regularly posting this gives the perception of systemic bias that only one of the many Olympic events are far and away more important than all of the others. The average casual reader is not an expert on ice hockey. All they will perceive is an unverified and very subjective claim that "men's hockey in the Olympics is significantly more notable than the other Olympic sports". Yes, it may be the "most popular or important" Olympic sport in your country or region, but not necessarily in every country that has participants. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • No, posting this says "This the the most important international hockey tournament in the world." --Jayron32 11:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
      • "This is the most important international hockey tournament in the world" is a very subjective claim, and a little premature. As usual, the National Hockey League is hesitant on whether they will continue letting their players participate in future Olympics. It took them until July 2013 to decide to commit to Sochi. So what happens if/when they decline to send "the best players", and the Olympics teams then comprise of amateurs or players from other leagues? Some of these subjective arguments that "it's the most premier ice hockey tournament" will become even more subjective. At least the IIHF World Championships will always have some NHL players (from those teams eliminated from playoff contention). It's very hard to justify something here re-occurring every four years when you always have the NHL not treating it as re-occurring. Even if the NHL eventually agrees to 2018, they will always be non-committal and "re-evaluating" 2022 and beyond. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Jayron32, the point is that the Olympics is also the most important tournament for running, skiing, swimming, figure skating, etc - in fact, most Olympic sports - yet we only include ice hockey. That's why having this amounts to us saying that ice hockey is more important than any other Olympic event. Neljack (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Again, my support for removing this from ITNR is twofold: As Neljack has stated, it is unfair to single out one sport when all the other Olympics events can be considered "the most important international [Insert sport here] event in the world". And secondly, there is always this cloud hanging over the tournament: the National Hockey League is unwilling to commit long-term to interrupt its season midway and send its best players to the Olympics, and is instead always in this "re-evaluating" mode. How many rosters would have been affected if the NHL did not let its players go to Sochi? I'd say Canada, Sweden and the U.S. teams would have been affected the most -- three of the top four teams that finished the tournament. Compare that to the 2013 IIHF World Championship rosters, where there are always NHL players available, from those NHL teams that have been eliminated from Stanley Cup contention. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On accusations of systemic bias, this entire system systematizes systemic bias, as we "cherry pick" certain things from a set, and make them "representatives" of that entire set. So the allegations of systemic bias are true, yes we do that. Here. And it's legal. This cherry picking is usually in the reasoning that "it is the most important/followed/popular event from that field", the same reasoning that's being used in the ice hockey example. For example, we'd see the UEFA Champions League instead of the AFC Champions League, the Premier League instead of the J.League, and Six Nations instead of the Asian Five Nations. We do this all the time here. In some instances though, we accommodate something from the UK (and IRELAND! Yes, Ireland! Hong Kong has more people, but sorry, not Anglophone enough due to the handover lol), so the systemic "isn't so bad". Hence, the Academy and the BAFTAs, the Tonys and the Laurence Olivier, heck even the "International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award". Yeah, we do add another one but it doesn't solve the systemic bias problem at all. –HTD 07:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep.
    1. Ice hockey is a highly popular sport among a significant number of nations. Yes it doesn't cover the whole world, but few sports do. There are more ice hockey players and fans than many of the sports we do have an ITNR entry for. So we should have one for ice hockey too for balance. That should include both the top club and international competitions.
    2. The Winter Olympics are the only time that the NHL teams release all their players to represent their countries. As a result, this is the top level of international ice hockey competition. The IIHF World Championships are held every year, but only feature a fraction of the world's best players (those whose NHL teams have already been eliminated). Ergo we should treat the Olympics event as more significant than the World Championships.
    3. Ice hockey is the flagship event of most Winter Olympics. The level of coverage in international media is higher than any other Winter Olympic sport. The mere fact that this competition is held as part of a larger sporting event is irrelevant. If it was separated it would still be a huge event with major interest. The historical curiosity (related to a power struggle between the IIHF and NHL) which means that there isn't a separate ice hockey tournament with top-level participation should not outweigh the significance of the event.
    4. It is the most significant Winter Olympic event. So there's no problem if we reflect that status by posting it. If people are unhappy, we can make it a separate blurb.
  • For what it's worth, I'm from the UK, a country which is hardly noted as a powerhouse of ice hockey. Sorry for being late to this discussion. Modest Genius talk 22:26, 24 March 2014 (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.

Driehaus Architecture Prize laureate (annually, once)

Hi! The Driehaus Architecture Prize is the most relevant international award in New Urbanism, New Classical and vernacular architecture, thus covering a field that is globally relevant and changed the discourse of architecture and urbanism considerably. It's awarded annually and comes with a prize money of $200'000, twice that of Pritzker. Pritzker is the only event that is ITNR so far in architecture, so I think a second/alternative award can and should be handled. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment as this is currently a nomination at ITN/C, it'd be interesting to see what the comments say before deciding whether this has the gravitas to become an ITN/R item, particularly as we already have one architecture article there. Right now, neither the article itself nor sources relating to the award appear to indicate notability of the nature of Pritzker, so it's an oppose from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment what the Pritzker means for the modernist monopoly, is the Driehaus for New Urbanist and Traditionalist architects. A global practice continuing throughout centuries and of far bigger artistic scope than everything modernist. -- Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Btw, there's 7(!) recurring award events listed underneath the film section, of course not all of them on par when it comes to relevance. So it'd be fair to have at least 2 very different ones (the most relevant in their respective fields) for architecture, imho. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
      • And we only have 6 for Nobel Prizes (!) and 5 for global political summits and 4 for literature. My suggestion holds, if this gets any traction at ITN/C this year, then consider it a possibility, but right now, this is a poor cousin to Pritzker in a global sense. Don't forget the primary purpose of ITN is: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news."... This item has barely made the mainstream news anywhere I've searched (e.g. this tells me something...). It's unlikely that anyone's searching for it. So it shouldn't be on ITN, let alone a shoo-in via ITN/R. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've seen news of a far minor scope up at ITN. But we'll see, perhaps Arts/Architecture gets a chance for once. :) Bontempi's Driehaus at ArchDaily. Cheers! Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments on the ITN/C nomination.[1] [2] Neljack (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
waeak support in the interest of diversification. Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Alpine skiing world cup

Strong consensus to add to ITN/R. Stephen 04:51, 16 April 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.

I am wondering how come we don't have it as ITNR? It seems to me that other than ice hockey, winter sports are heavily underrepresented on ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I think Nergaal raises a good point. It's been posted the last four years, often with unanimous support.[3] [4] [5] [6] I agree about the under-representation of winter sports, and skiing is one of the biggest of them. So I support adding the women's and men's overall winners to ITN/R (to be posted in a single blurb). Neljack (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, the way we had it in the previous years. Naming both cup winners in a single blurb. --Tone 23:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - it has been posted the last few years with little or no opposition. No reason not to add it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Just so obvious. The traditional peak event of the snow sliding sports. Surely it's just an oversight that it wasn't already ITN/R. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Posted regularly with little opposition; it is the top level in the sport. No reason not to be ITNR I think. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack. I'm not a huge fan of the event, and the articles are often poor before ITN comes along. But that doesn't discount the fact that this is a decently popular sport and ITN/C has consistently voted to post it, almost without opposition. Might as well add it to ITNR. Modest Genius talk 22:14, 1 April 2014 (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.

NATO Sec'y General

No consensus to add this to ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 9 May 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.

Proposal to make this ITNR. Though there may be some accusation of Eurocentric bias, it is the most notable international military supranational body. A new head should be ITNR, IMO. Possibly even the military head.Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Support - While there's clearly loads and loads of international orgs. and those with larger member numbers, NATO remains the most influential, even ahead of the United Nations. Military unions still rule the world, like it or not. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for a new Secretary-General. I don't think an incumbent's term being extended should qualify. Neljack (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst this is doubtless a significant post, it's only been posted once (IIRC), and isn't exactly a frequent occurrence. I think it's best to leave this to individual nominations at ITN/C, at least for the moment. Modest Genius talk 22:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MG. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2014 (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.

NCAA basketball championship (once a year)

No consensus to add this to ITNR. Even numbers on either side of the debate, and I couldn't see that one side's argument was stronger than the other. Number 57 09:57, 15 May 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.

Following the recent consensus to post NCAA basketball championship (March Madness) results, I propose to add the event to ITNR. According to Forbes, the NCAA men's final four (without counting the regular season games) is one of the world's top 10 sporting events, ranked just below Winter Olympics and above Major League Baseball. CBS and Turner are paying $10.8 billion for 14 years of NCAA basketball TV rights, or $771 million per year, compared to $4.38 billion NBC pays for 10 years (five events) of Olympics TV rights ($876 million per event). In addition, March Madness pools have become a major cultural phenomenon in the US, see USA Today article. This seems to be a major omission from ITNR. Disclaimer: I'm not American and rarely watch basketball games. -Zanhe (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume we are speaking of just the men's tournament; the women's is not nearly as popular. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, although the women's results can be easily combined with the men's, as we normally do in tennis events. -Zanhe (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the Men's tournament Highest level competition in amateur basketball, big time impact on the sports world. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose You got an easy ride on ITN/C with a speedy (probably too speedy) post and a time zone that naturally favoured US-centric argument. I could easily have torn apart your rationale if debate had been allowed to continue to the point where a genuine consensus emerged but have no interest in taking up that argument now. However, the guts of your argument was that this is one of the top sporting events in the country and the top basketball event. If that's the case the case for retaining the NBA is unclear. I'd say one or the other, I don't care which but I don't see a case for two. 46.208.40.139 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You're mistaken on several accounts. I was not the nominator of the ITN/C entry, though I supported it. And NCAA final four is one of the World's top 10 sporting events (8th to be exact), not just the US, according to Forbes. -Zanhe (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So I mixed you up with the original nominator. How is that several accounts? How is it eligible for ITNR when it has failed repeatedly in previous years? ITNR is for events that get through (or would get through) every time. Even this year consensus has been disputed on procedural grounds. 46.208.40.139 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is one of the most talked about events in the United States every year. Although it is not officially the "amateur level" of basketball (that would be the NBA Development League), it is way more popular than the official amateur level. Aside from the Super Bowl, not many other sporting events are so widely discussed by Americans, nor are they watched by so many people. This event is something culturally significant for Americans, which is shown by the amount of people who both watch and attend the games. It is also shown by how people do get really into the whole tournament, by making their own brackets and making their own predictions on which teams will win. Andise1 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It would have been better to wait a few days before going to ITN/R and maybe have other discussion first, as was my plan... Since we are here, let me recap to central argument:
The only true significance any sport has is that which people assign to it. Instead of judging sports by their "level of play", we should judge them by the cultural impact. By cultural impact I mean things like "do people who don't follow the sport normally pay attention" and "is this something people talk about at the water cooler."
In the United States, only the Super Bowl is obviously more important culturally than the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Several US sports listed on ITN/R are obviously of less significance than the tournament. We should correct this by listing the tournament, and if necessary removing some of the other items (as I will propose soon).

Historically, the NCAA tournament was listed in 2010 (11-6 !vote) and 2011 (10-6). It was rejected in 2012 (11-12) and 2013 (14-14). (Prior to 2010, ITN was an informal process without a !voting stage.) This year it passed with a 14:1 !vote (so far) including support from several voices who had opposed in previous years. It is not plausible that it was posted merely because of timing - the margin may have eventually narrowed, but it was clearly going to have majority support. Based on this discussion and the discussion on this year's nomination for The Boat Race (which was also rejected previously), I feel there is an emerging consensus that cultural impact is an important and valid way to judge sports. Thus, I support adding the NCAA Men's Tournament to ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No objection to also mentioning the women's tournament, for the record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN is already too balanced towards sporting events; adding more that are little known outside the country in which the event occurs seems unbalanced. I'd have voted against posting this year's if I'd been active during the brief discussion period. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    There are several (American) items listed that I think should be removed. If they are removed in, would that help alleviate the concern? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    I also agree that ITN is overweighted with sporting events. However, the solution is to remove other far less influential events (netball anyone?), instead of excluding an event that is ranked in the top ten of the world. -Zanhe (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Removing netball would be a perfect way of reinforcing our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That would only be the case if netball was equivalent to this tournament and being excluded because it is from a certain region, not if it was excluded due to its level of interest. 331dot (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Removing netball (which I am not advocating) probably would not be a good example of systematic bias - it is played mostly in English speaking countries. Now if someone says remove table tennis or badminton or sumo, that would be a perfect example of systematic bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Part of our systemic boas is that most editors are male. Netball is primarily a sport played by females. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest each major sport (though we could argue forever over what constitutes that; to this non-sport-loving Brit, basketball is a peripheral sport I'd barely heard of before I started reading ITN/C; netball is far more familiar) should only have a single ITN/R per non-Olympics year. The only way I'd be neutral towards this addition would be if it replaced all other basketball coverage. I'd be strongly in favour of pruning ITN/R for other sports but I doubt I'd find consensus for such a radical change. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, basketball is most likely in the global top five. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Are there any stats on that? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Except for soccer, which is a clear #1, basketball should give rugby and cricket some competition at #2. Heck, FIBA (213) has more members than the International Cricket Council (106) or the International Rugby Board (100). Outside the test playing teams for the rugby and cricket, no one gives a shit. For example, the Russian Wikipedia article of the Russian rugby team, the 19th ranked rugby team in the world, has more 2/3 of its players in red links. Any of the three ICC world rankings doesn't even reach into the top 20; the 12 best Twenty20 team, Netherlands, doesn't even have an article on a single player in the Dutch article (I dunno if that's Walloon or Flemish)! Italy, the 21st strongest team in FIBA, has all of its players have articles in the Italian Wikipedia. –HTD 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be very difficult/impossible to create a definite list. Other than football (soccer), almost all sports have huge appeal in some regions, and none in others. MostPopularSports.net has taken a reasonable crack at it using an objective measure (details). On their list claims basketball is #2 globally (it is popular in China, so that helps a lot). Subjectively, if I was forced to guess, I'd say cricket is the real #2 (#3 on their list). The rest of their top 10 is tennis, baseball, table tennis, golf, volleyball, badminton, and rugby. Looks like a reasonable list to me, although I'd guess it overestimates baseball a bit (they don't give scores so there may be little difference between 5 and 10). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Football > ... > basketball > cricket > (could be ice or field) hockey > rugby. Football is spiking every September. What's up with that? I think it includes other types of football that are also called "football". –HTD 22:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You are comparing by search term, so naturally "football" would capture all varieties ("hockey" also captures both varieties of hockey). You can also search by topic (enter the term and wait a few seconds for a popup list) which fixes that problem. Conclusion is the same though - football wins easily. here are some contenders, minus football to avoid obscuring the others. Basketball wins, but cricket is gaining - probably because internet use is increasing in Pakistan & India rather than actual popularity increase. If you look at just the last year cricket passes tennis for #2 and is close to basketball... I would caution against reading much into Google trends though as 1) other search engines are dominant in some parts of the world and 2) internet access is far from universal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, judging by the link you provided, rugby is abysmal. I even tried "rugby football (sport)" and got the same result. Cricket is doing well because of the sheer size of Pakistan and India; there's also strong interest in the West Indies (see "Regional interest"). Basketball's more spread out with Lithuania, USA, the Philippines and the former Yugoslavia leading the way, with basketball even being heavily searched in places such as Bahamas and British Virgin Islands. –HTD 00:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
To determine how popular a sport is on the places where it is not traditionally strong, I got the teams eliminated in the group stages of the last world cups of cricket, rugby (for rugby, the last two places) and basketball. Then I got the search volume index for each country.
Country Cricket Rugby Basketball
Zimbabwe 7
Canada 3 2 47
Kenya 3
Zimbabwe 5
Bangladesh 43
Ireland 3
Netherlands 1
Japan 3
Georgia 4
Romania 1
USA 1
Russia 0
Namibia 11
Fiji 47
Germany 10
Jordan 16
Iran 9
Tunisia 7
Puerto Rico 24
Ivory Coast 1
Lebanon 21
Canada 47
Average 9.29 8.63 16.88
LOL Canada always eliminated. –HTD 00:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least for now. Too many negatives surrounding this right now. I might change my mind later. This was posted far too hastily, in a way that endorses the image of Americans bullying things through (whether that's fair or not). Too many Americans are just telling us "It IS important", without really being able to explain why. They are obviously excited about this event right now. Maybe the nomination should wait until the irrational excitement dies down. There are a million questions that non-Americans could ask. Why is it called an amateur tournament when most (if not all?) of the players are paid to be there? (Scholarships? LOL.) We have a massive systemic bias in Wikipedia. Adding this will just reinforce it. The amount of American money involved should not be part of "In The NEWS". Events in much poorer countries can be much more significant in those countries. Etc, etc, etc. Why don't you wait until the immediate excitement has died down, and carefully come up with a clean, rational argument, that puts this in a global perspective? HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If you read the discussion at ITN/C, there are plenty of non-Americans supporting posting the news, myself included. -Zanhe (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @HiLo - Yah, it would have been better to wait to nominate (as was my plan). Do you really feel my argument failed to explain why it is important though? If so, what would you like as evidence? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Based on any significant statistical measure, this is the third biggest sporting event in the U.S. (after the Super Bowl and the NCAA FBS Championship). This is a more important event in the basketball world than the NBA Finals, based on any statistical measure of interest.--Jayron32 01:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
What on earth is FBS? (The problem is only made worse when the language is obscure. Oh, and while we're at it, what is NCAA? Yes, I know I could look them up, but if you want to make it easy for others to accept your points....) HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is the TV viewership data from 2012 for sporting events in the U.S. (the most recent report I could find data for) The NCAA is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the group that oversees College Athletics in the U.S. FBS is the Football Bowl Subdivision, the highest level of college football in the United States. According to that report I just linked, in 2012, the top championship games in the United States sports were (by viewership):
  1. The Super Bowl: 111,346,000 viewers
  2. The College Football Championship (known as the BCS Championship Game): 26,380,000 viewers
  3. The NCAA Division I Mens Basketball Championship game: 20,869,000 viewers
  4. The NBA Finals series: Average of 16,855,000 viewers
  5. The Daytona 500 (not a championship, per se, but the most watched auto race in the U.S.): 13,669,000 viewers
  6. The World Series (baseball) Average of 12,660,000 viewers
It is what it is. Those are the most popular sports, by the viewership of their most watched games, last year. Pro Football is first, followed by College Football, followed by College Basketball, followed by Pro Basketball. --Jayron32 02:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the Forbes ranking, the NCAA basketball final four generates twice as much revenue per day of competition as NCAA FBS. -Zanhe (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Zanhe - you seem pretty obsessed with money being a key element, but given that this discussion is ostensibly about sport, it's a distracting issue. Obviously American sports will inevitably involve more money than those in less wealthy nations (even "amateur" American sports involve a lot of money in scholarships). That doesn't automatically make them more important. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree money is not a good measure of global significance, but presumably it could be used as an objective way to compare one American sport to another American sport. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It's silly to pretend that money is not important, especially in sports. Viewership and revenue are the only objective measurements of a spectator sport's real influence. All other arguments are subjective. -Zanhe (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Viewership is important, but sometimes only as a proportion of potential audience. Using revenue as a measure says that events in wealthy countries are more important that events in poorer countries. That's pure systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, as if we're adding ITNR items from poor (or even "middle class") countries. I'd prefer viewership too over "money", but I'd prefer the "percentages" of the people who watched, not the gross numbers. For example, the Super Bowl is absolutely massive in the US, but I heard the World Baseball Classic was bigger in Cuba than the Super Bowl is to America, and that the Cubans were royally pissed when the Euro-centric IOC ditched baseball... and eventually added rugby. –HTD 12:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to reluctantly Oppose this. I tend to agree that the nomination this year at ITN/C only got through because it was rushed through - there was some movement to pull it once editors from other parts of the world came online and I think there would have been more if the nomination had been left open longer; I'd have opposed that nomination but didn't feel strongly enough about it to argue for a pull. Given the considerable opposition in other years, it seems unlikely that it would have got up on a fair consideration. But my main reason for opposing it is that its interest seems to be almost entirely limited to the USA and we already have the NBA finals. I find it difficult to accept that this amateur competition is actually less significant there than the NBA; certainly outside of the USA the NBA finals are much more significant than the NCAA competition (I guess what I mean is, that growing up in Australia and now living in the UK, I'd heard of the NBA and could name a few teams, but had not even a vague idea that something like the NCAA existed). At any rate, I think having two USA basketball competitions in ITN/R is excessive, so the only way I'd move to supporting this is if the NBA championship is removed first. GoldenRing (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Every previous year there were less supports and more opposes within the time frame it was posted this year. Some who had opposed in previous years supported this year. It was posted in 2010+2011 after 2 days of discussion. Far eastern (e.g. Australia) time zones had been online for a while when it was posted. It is thus disingenuous to say it got through solely because of timing - the ratio of support:oppose would have likely narrowed but it would have had a clear majority regardless. The tournament is widely followed in Canada and the Philippines. It is modestly followed in Mexico and parts of Asia. That is a similar level of non-home country interest as The Boat Race. (Both are covered by RS around the globe.)
The NCAA tournament is more important within the United States, while the NBA is more important internationally. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. SpencerT♦C 00:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support it's right on par in terms of viewership with many items on ITN/R.And said who is not not covered outside the US? Plenty of college teams have international players on their rosters. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It actually has higher viewership than the majority of items on ITN/R. American universities are also attended by hundreds of thousands of international students from all over the world. -Zanhe (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Thaddeus and my own comments.[7][8] Neljack (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Also I agree with the suggestion of including the women's tournament in the same blurb. Neljack (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral but support more than oppose (men's); oppose (women's). The arguments for the popularity of the tournament are convincing, even though I had never even heard of it prior to this discussion. The tournament does not seem to have the same sense of tradition and culture as other similar events, though, such as the Boat Race. I must oppose adding the women's tournament, however. The arguments for popularity have been made for the popularity of the men's tournament. There is nothing to suggest that the women's tournament is remotely important, as insensitive as this might sound. It is not Wikipedia's duty to elevate the women's tournament to the same place as the men's. To put it another way, if the tournaments took place at different times of the year, I think we would be hard-pressed to conclude that the women's tournament alone is worthy of being posted. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You are correct - the women's tournament generates less than 5% of the interest of the men's even if the US. If listed, it would be based on gender equality concerns, not based on the arguments supplied for the men's tournament. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose ITNR is to avoid pointless debate over things that are obvious candidates. This isn't it - it managed to get in this year on a consensus that has legitimately been questioned. In previous years it has failed completely. If it's not a sure thing every year ITNR status isn't appropriate. Using the status to get things put up that otherwise wouldn't be is an abuse of the intentions of ITNR, to cut pointless debate for the most obvious and clear cut nominations. 3142 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's just your personal interpretation of INTR. By your standard, many items on the ITNR will have to be removed. Do you seriously think Netball championships, promotion of a sumo wrestler to Yokozuna, and Volvo Ocean Race are guaranteed passage if they're up for discussion every time? -Zanhe (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yet another comment that completely ignores the many obvious reasons (discussed above) why the questioning of the consensus (by 3 of 18 comments) was not a reason to believe the consensus was "invalid". Consensus can change, and it has moved in favor of posting NCAA basketball whether you like it or not (it was also posted in 2010 and 2011 as noted above, so its not like it failed misserably every year liek you imply). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose For many of the reasons already given: sport features far too heavily on ITNR as it is and basketball is already well represented. A lot of the supposed notability is really inherited from elsewhere - the interest in the entire league is collected together as justification for a single match. For college level sports I would question how legitimate it is since there is much more tribalism involved than in professional level sports - i.e. you may follow the local team or one's alma mater across a range of sports but that interest does not naturally extend to the wider leagues in each discipline. Conflating the two can easily create a misleading impression. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any varsity sports. Regardless of how many people are interested in them, they are by definition not, for any sport, top-level. Same goes for the boat race. Formerip (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The number of people interested in something is not irrelevant; the role of ITN is to help people locate articles about subjects they are interested in because they are in the news. This tournament is a top story for at least two or three weeks, and not just in the US. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about irrelevant? What it isn't is a good enough reason on its own. If it were, we would have a very long ITNR list. Formerip (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And why is being "top level" the only valid criteria? Why is something more important because it is "top level"? The idea that something is important because it is top level, and indeed what even is "top level", is entirely arbitrary. I would think/hope no one would argue the NBA is less important than the FIBA world championships simply because it is not a world championship. I don't see anyone advocating against English Premier League even though it is technically a feeder for Champions League. Surely no one would say we should drop the Indianapolis 500 and instead list the IndyCar Series championship. Nor would anyone say we shouldn't list the four Grand Slam tennis events and list the ATP/WTA World Tour Championships instead, even though the Slams are actually only events to earn points for the championship event. In all these cases (and others), we list the widely followed events that people actually care about. We don't list only the "top-level" "championships", but the things that "really matter" which is determined by what people decide really matters. There is no reason university sport inheritently doesn't matter. These two events (March Madness, Boat Race) are important for the same reason any sport is important - people decide that it is. We shouldn't try to impose our idea of what should matter, but rather reflect what society has decided does matter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This. That sounds in part like something I've been saying for years. "We shouldn't try to impose our idea of what should matter, but rather reflect what society has decided does matter." is the problem in a nutshell. People here are often arguing from a place of being upset that society at large cares about something they don't, and they wish to impose their own opinions on what is "important" over what is. --Jayron32 17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
That's fine if you're happy to support royal tours, X Factor finals and celebrity divorces for ITNR, but not otherwise. Formerip (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We aren't talking about comparing sporting events to other types of things, we are talking about comparing one sporting event to another. (I will also dispute that people assign importance to e.g. celebrity gosip the way they do sports.) What makes any sporting event important? People decide it is important. Who are we to tell people we think event X is more important than event Y because X is technicaly the championship even though 90% of the people who care about Y don't care about X?
We already acknowledge that being "top-level" isn't necessary. If one really took this highest-level-event-only "rule" seriously, they would have to argue to include only the World Cup finals in football. Afterall, no one would argue that the WC is not the highest level competition in football.
Furthermore, being "top-level" is clearly not sufficient. We aren't about to post the kickball world championships or the Quidditch world championships, even though such things exist. Why? because they are not sufficiently popular.
Being "top-level" is not some magic bullet that makes a sport important. Sports fans decide what events are important and which are not. Now it happens that the highest-level championship are often also the most important in fan eyes, but that is not actually the case. We should strive to cover what the fans of a sport see as important, not what we arbitrarily decide is important. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Why should this appeal to popularity only work in the case of sport, for goodness sake? College basketball is to US sport what the US version of the X Factor is to US culture. The two are totally comparable. Neither present their respective activity in its most refined form and neither garner major worldwide attention. All either have in its favour is a large domestic TV audience. That's not enough, and there is absolutely no validity in saying that sport ought to get special treatment. Formerip (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
First, "popularity" (your argument) is not the same thing as "assigned importance" (my argument). Something can be popular and yet have minimal importance assigned to it even by those who follow it. That is certainly the case for celebrity gossip and to a lesser extent to singing talent shows. Second, no one said "cultural impact" as I call it should apply only to sports. The Grammys are more important than X-Factor because they have a larger impact, not because they are awards for professionals instead of amateurs. The Pritzker Prize is the only award listed for Arcitecture because it is the only one that has an impact outside of the field, not because it is the only award given to top-level architects. Similarily, things like March Madness and the Boat Race have impact outside of fans of basketball and rowing.
Third, why should this top-level argument only apply only to university sports? The most "refined form" of football is the World Cup. Period. Why is it OK to feature 8 other football competitions if the rule is top-level only? Unless you are seriously advocating for one listing per sport, than you are acknowledging that multiple levels of play are sufficiently important to be listed already. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You're arguing against points I haven't made, Thaddeus. I don't think we should take a simplistic approach ruling things in or our based on one factor, whatever the factor is (but particularly if it is the X Factor). College basketball has domestic popularity, which is one thing to consider. But it also lacks worldwide interest and toplevelness. It also relates to a sport and a nation that already feature a lot on ITN, so there's a question of systematic bias.
I don't know whether 8 football items is too many or not, but it's not a question of just picking the top-level. The most refined level of football is probably the Champions League, rather than the World Cup (Real Madrid or Man Utd - turning a blind eye to their current form - are stronger sides than any national team). But the World Cup is the world's most watched sporting event, so we can't not include it. Because we are not considering one factor in isolation. Formerip (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, your original post said oppose because, by definition, university sport is not top level. If you actually meant also oppose because its not followed globally and not the US is overrepresented on ITNR then you should have said so... I do agree the US is overrepresented and if you look through this discussion I've said multiple times some other US sports should be removed. I would have preferred those removals come first, as part of a general overhaul of ITNR sports to better reflect impact of various sporting events. I do not want to cover more sport, I want to cover the right sports. College basketball is the third most popular sport in the US, ahead of ~12 other listed US events. Only the Super Bowl has an obviously greater impact culturally. It does make sense to remove low impact US sports; it does not make sense to exclude the 2nd most impactful and 3rd most watched, even if it is not widely followed elsewhere. (NCAA baksetball is followed well enough to get press coverage around the globe, as I've shown several years. Very few sporting events generate more significant interest than that outside their home region.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have restored this form the archive and will request an admin closure at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure. I kindly ask the closer to compare this year's discussion (which passed easily) to last year's, for example, to verify the comments about about alledged improperity this year to not hold water (i.e. the discussion was much different at time of closure than the same point last year). I also ask for an explanation whichever they rule since any decision is likely to be ocntroversial. Thnk you --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2014 (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.

Pulitzer Prize

As suggested by User:Agne27 at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#NSA Stories take Pulitzer Prize. World's leading journalism prize. 1 (that really matters) per year. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised this wasn't on here yet. That said, this year may be a fluke since there is one clear award that everyone is highlighting, while from spot checking past awards, there's no one single award that is given the headline on the reporting of the awards. This might make blurb writing hard even though sourcing and updating would be easy. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, people were talking about the "main prize", which confused me - the first prize I think of would be the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. Neljack (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There are really 2 "main" prizes. Fiction and Public Service (journalism). However, there are many awards for literature, but no other major one for journalism so in the US, at least, Pulitzer means "journalism award". If someone says "he should win a Pulitzer" there is a 90%+ chance the are talking about a reporter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but leave what to highlight in blurb up to editor decision - I realize the Pulitzer is mostly a US-only award, but we don't have any other award for journalism on ITN/R at current. As such, it would be best to add the Pulitzer and some other major journalism prizes to represent other countries, rather than never post anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the single most prestigious award for journalism. Per ThaddeusB, the blurb should highlight the winner for Public Service. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, particularly the public service award. Although this year was an exceptional case, it isn't routinely an award that means much from a worldwide perspective, and ditto for the awards generally. From time to time, Pulitzers might be awarded for important stories that have gained international attention, but that can be dealt with through the normal process. Formerip (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Formerip. Neljack (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but perhaps with some guidelines to address the concerns raised here by the oppose voters. Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the journalism prize. The world's most important prize in a field which is currently under-represented on ITN. Not much more to say! Modest Genius talk 15:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • There isn't actually a single "Pulitzer for journalism", which is part of the problem. They don't really give a standout award which might be suitable for ITN. Formerip (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Defer to next year. It's so easy to support now because one of the journalist awards is about an international issue. Try again next year; who knows it could be about U.S.-specific issue and I can't wait to see how people would react. –HTD 23:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove New York City & Chicago Marathons

Already actioned by 331dot, so this discussion may as well (or should have been) closed at the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 22 May 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.

We currently list 5 Marathons on ITN/R. This is probably due to the false standard of "highest level" competition of every sport. Since the IAAF decided five marathon (actually six now, our list is out of date) are equally important, we listed them all. This gives marathon a lot of weight on ITN and is a bad idea in general - if IAAF decides 10 are important next year, will we list all 10? Instead, we should judge the events based on their real importance; that is, the importance the public assigns to them. The Boston, London, and Berlin marathons have significant cultural impact and are followed by the general public in their home countries (at miniumum). The New York & Chicago marathons (and newly minted Tokyo Marathon) do not have the same broad appeal and are noticed most only by fans of the sport and runners. Therefore, I suggest we delist NYC and Chicago. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I have removed Chicago from the list as I don't see any support yet for keeping it. Left New York for now. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Chicago removal. Neutral on teh NY Marathon. My sense is if I had to chose to drop either the Boston Marathon or the NYC marathon then it would be the NY one. The races used to be much more distinct. Years ago, the NY Marathon was open to all entrants, while you had to quality to get into the Boston marathon.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2014 (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.


The Boat Race

There appears to be consensus for this to be added to ITN/R. Number 57 10:04, 15 May 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.

I was going to wait a few days, but since the NCAA discussion has been opened now, it is only fair to start The Boat Race discussion too...

The argument for adding The Boat Race to ITN/R is (from my perspective) the same as the NCAA tournament. That is, the sport is of huge cultural importance. Each year millions of people who normally never follow rowing tune into The Boat Race in the United Kingdom (and to lesser degrees in Canada and Australia). It is widely talked about and its importance clearly goes beyond its "level of play".

This year was the first time The Boat Race was published, however it was done so unanimously (7-0 !vote), including support from multiple people who opposed in previous years. The 2012 edition was rejected 9-14 but the discussion was partially derailed based on anger NCAA basketball wasn't posted. It failed 2-5 in 2011. It wasn't nominated in 2010 or 2013. (Prior to 2010, ITN was an informal process with minimal discussion on items.) Based on people changing sides and the discussion on this year's NCAA tournament, I believe there is an emerging consensus that cultural impact is a valid and important way to judge sports stories. Therefore, I feel The Boat Race should be added to ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Might be worth noting that after this year's successful nomination, I've been working hard(ish) on getting a decent "cookie cutter" template of an article, based on the 2014 one, to give each race the coverage the global interest it generates deserves. The closest race in history (Oxford winning by a mere 12 inches over a four+ mile race is now covered in The Boat Race 2003). So I'll support this proposal, and hope, in the good faith and nice talk we've had (in the main) about both the Boat Race and the NCAA discussion, we can embrace cultural significance on both sides of the pond. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I wrote above, ITN is already too balanced towards sporting events; adding more that are little known outside the country in which the event occurs seems unbalanced. I'd have voted against posting this year's if I'd been active during the brief discussion period. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
And you've already blown constructive, respectful discussion right out of the water there. Congratulations. The very first post mentioned interest outside the UK, yet you write "...little known outside the country in which the event occurs". Just saying the opposite of what another editor says, without further clarification, is bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion period was 23 hours and resulted in unanimous consensus. I am not sure who you think was not represented in the discussion, but it most certainly was not just one country/region commenting... If we remove a couple items of less significance to "make room" for this, would that alleviate your concern? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I've struck 'brief'; I rarely edit over weekends. There's been negative comment on the main-page talk about this item in particular, college-level sport in general, as well as the current preponderance of sport. I find it hard to see the global significance of the Boat Race despite having attended one of the two universities -- even to Oxbridge graduates it's only a mild curiosity unless one happened to be a keen boatie, and elsewhere? I'd be surprised if it made a ripple in most countries. Everyone would surely agree the quality of the race is far inferior to, say, the Olympic rowing events. And if you're talking top n events in British sport, then it would I think be far down below Wimbledon, the FA cup/premier league, the Ashes, the Grand National, the London marathon, and probably many others in terms of wide, sustained interest. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you are seriously under estimating the appeal of The Boat Race. From what I understand, The Boat Race is watched live by >10% of the UK population and seen by over 100 million people world wide. I seriously doubt the two Universities have 100 million "boatie" alumni. What you really mean is it is of no significance to you - but it is of significance to 100 million people.
As to the comment on the main page, it is the typical idiotic objection we get any time one subject area or country has a lot of stories at the same time by pure coincidence. Someone always takes the sample size of 6 items, sees 3 of the same type and assumes that is normal. It is not. We absolutely should not be basing any decisions on such complaints. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have next to zero interest in nearly all sports, so it's not just that I happen to have minimal personal interest in this one in particular. All the things I mentioned, and probably several rugby & snooker events too, have a far greater following in the British press than the Boat Race. More generally, though this isn't perhaps the place for this discussion, I'm worried with adding this & other events that are agreed not to represent the top level of the sport, that sport will simply overwhelm ITN. I feel this is already a significant problem; as I recall, there are often 2 or 3 sports events in the 6 total, and this is rarely the case for other broad categories. I suspect in part it's because it is quite easy to write an update for a sporting event that will satisfy ITN regulars, and rather harder to do so about, say, an ongoing war, an economic change, a global convention, a science item, or even an election in a non-Anglophone country. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You recall incorrectly. Different sports do tend to end at similar times of the year, so there are times when 2+ are listed, but it is far from the norm. Having 0 listed is more common than 2. The most posted category is natural disasters. If every election article was updated, then elections would be #1, but thankfully (IMO) many have no interest in being updated (I don't think it is more difficult to do, though). If you want to talk about something that is of interest to very few people outside it's home country, an election certainly qualifies.
Like I said, I do want to eliminate a few sports items form the list in interest of moving to a list that better reflects cultural importance (and is roughly the same size as current). I was actually going to make that proposal first, and after the current items rotated off the template, but then NCAA basketball was nominated, forcing my hand so to speak. Now I will let these two nominations runs their course and then, whatever the outcome of these, will restart the process with a discussion about what we want to feature in more general terms before returning to specific items.
We could do better, but overall we do a good job of being balanced on ITN. You are partially right though - the main obstacle toward getting (even more) diverse offerings is interest in writing the stories. Getting the !votes is usually not that hard if you explain why a story should be posted well. I would like to point out that I personally have gone out of my way to nominate and write "underrepresented" stories (by country or subject area). However, I am only one person. If you care about preventing an over abundance of sport stories, I suggest you help write stories. That is a far better option than opposing sport stories that millions of people care deeply about. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just gone & looked at ITN history back to 1 January, and you are right that 3 is unusual; at least in Northern hemisphere winter/spring it usually seems to run at 1, with occasional 0 & 2. The only other 3 so far this year would be counting the Winter Olympics sticky as an item. I'd love to see more topic diversity, but looking through the past just over three months we've actually been doing better than we were last year on that one. Adding new items to ITN/R in the well-represented areas doesn't tend to promote topic diversity, which is why I think it should be done extremely cautiously. I'd be much happier to accept new sport items if an equivalent number could be removed at the same time. And indeed, the best way to increase diversity is to write material, but I've had limited luck with that at ITN. Most of the times I've worked hard on an article it's not found consensus to post, which doesn't tend to increase enthusiasm. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I hear you re:enthusiasm. Unfortunately there are some ITN regulars who never write anything yet oppose everything they can... Since this is getting off topic, I think I will leave my other thoughts on your talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support but I think we have enough sports items in ITN/R as it is. The thing that tips this into weak support (instead of my reluctant oppose for the NCAA basketball item) is that this has some cultural impact outside of its home country. GoldenRing (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Just where else outside the UK is the boat race significant? I'm betting the NCAA gets higher ratings than the CIS in Canada. –HTD 12:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • CIS? HiLo48 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • See the discussion below - it's broadcast in 180 countries. Given that there are somewhere between 190 and 200 countries in the world (depending exactly what you count as a country), there are not many places where it isn't broadcast. Given that broadcast coverage, the claimed audience of 400 million seems plausible. Of course you can dispute it, but I'd like to see some actual counter evidence, not just, "It doesn't seem that significant to me, so I'm not going to believe the numbers," which is where this discussion seems to head sometimes. GoldenRing (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This is a hugely important aspect of the British sporting calendar, both for its impact in sport and its impact culturally. User:The Rambling Man wrote that it was watched by more than 10% of the British population, which is remarkable, especially considering that the vast majority of these people would have attended neither of the universities. The Boat Race 2003 says that 400 million watched the event on the television, which emphasises its importance outside the United Kingdom. An entirely unopposed nomination is remarkable in itself. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • 400 million? What channel was this on? The source says "estimated global television audience", which could probably mean the number of people who could watch the race; not everyone cared to watch though (do UK viewers count double?). This is like "a billion people" watched a regular season NBA game between the Houston Rockets and the Milwaukee Bucks several years ago. –HTD 22:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The 400 million is provided in a reference on The Boat Race 2003. I believe that User:The Rambling Man has recently made a substantial effort to improve this article. User:CaptRik wrote at WP:ITNC that the figure this year had been 130 million people. A quick image search will show you the tens of thousands of people who line the river to watch the race. In addition to being so incredibly popular both in the United Kingdom and abroad, it encapsulates huge amounts of tradition between two of the greatest universities in the world and arguably the two with the most esteemed histories and traditions of all. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read the reference, but 400 million? Again, where was this on? 10% of the UK population is 6 million. It needs 394 million more. I could imagine Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to somehow care, but their combined population only reaches up to 67.7 million. If 100% of the people watched from those 4 countries, plus 10% in the UK, it won't reach "400 million". –HTD 22:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The estimate is probably based on either the number who had access to it live or the number who saw coverage of it (on the news, etc.), rather than the number who watched it live. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps. –HTD 12:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If it is true as claimed (and I see no reason to doubt it) that it is broadcast in 180 countries, that is probably a potential audience nearer to 4 billion than 400 million - that is, 4 billion people who could watch it if they chose to. Admittedly 4 billion is a guess, trying to take into account the populations of those 180 countries, the fraction with access to television etc, but it's at least the right order of magnitude. Given that, an actual audience of 400 million seems plausible, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
400 million is 10% if 4 billion. 10% of Brits with TV watched this. That means 10% of people in those 180 countries, with or without TV has to watch this live. That's rich. –HTD 14:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The Boat Race is broadcast in over 180 countries, not just the few you've mentioned. It's a global phenomenon. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, where else? Korea? China? Slovakia? Uruguay? Do those random countries even know this event exists? –HTD 12:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't really get what you're driving at. A quarter of a million people show up to watch it live. The race is broadcast globally. Alumni and non-alumni from around the world watch it. It's global. "I could imagine Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to somehow care", no, it's much wider than that. Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan etc. Another link from 2005 describing its broadcast (at that time) in over 100 countries. And one from 2010, from the BBC, stating the race was shown in "China, Russia, Croatia, the USA and Italy" for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Really? What channel was this on Sri Lanka? Some cable channel? The only way "400 million" could watch this if it's on "free TV" on all these countries, and 10% of the people, who may not have TV be able to watch. That should be like more than the reach it gets on its home country; I can buy that if it's Man Utd vs Liverpool. But the boat race? Nah. –HTD 14:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I give up. I've got better things to do here than worry about you disputing everything presented. I don't really care what you think at all. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I give up too. I'm just using math here now. 10% of Brits watched the boat race. Clearly, interest elsewhere couldn't be more than 10% of its population watching this, but 10% of 4 billion is 400 million. I give up. It's like claiming a billion people watched the Super Bowl, when it was like 100+ million Americans and 10+ million others. –HTD 14:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I can believe 100-400M people care enough to at least check the result/watch a news clip/read a news article. That is probably the more relevant # then the amount of people who watched it live anyways. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably. But the argument was "the TV audience was 400 million" or even "4 billion(!!!)". –HTD 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It was never an "argument", it was a quote from a referenced source. And it was never referenced as 4 billion, not sure where you got that from. In response, all of your arguments have been synthesised and anecdotal and hunches; most responses provided to you have been referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. GoldenRing used that "4 billion" figure. Everything else is just math. I'm never trusting these "global viewing figures" as all of these, from the boat race, Olympics, NBA, anything, is pure hyperbole. We could add up national figures though, which what I did. Nowhere approaches 400 million, heck even 100 million. If 10% of Americans watched the boat race, it can compete for the TV ratings of the World Series (#baseballbashing) . –HTD 16:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
We're just discussing the Boat Race here. So perhaps now you accept it's broadcast in somewhere between 100 and 180 countries, it's impossible to determine how many actual viewers there were, there's an argument to discuss about potential viewers, but since you're now aware that it's broadcast in China, you could up the "available viewers" by a billion. Time to stop arguing the toss, and just accept that this is a global event, whether you personally believe it to be or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
"you accept it's broadcast in somewhere between 100 and 180 countries" ... "and just accept that this is a global event. Noted. –HTD 22:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
BBC's broadcasting info - [9] if anyone is interested. CaptRik (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
"in excess of 7 million UK TV viewers, and tens of millions around the world" is certainly a lot more plausible than "4 billion" or even "400 million". –HTD 23:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No-one claimed an audience of 4 billion. I made a guess of 4 billion who could watch it if they chose to. I was clear both that this is a guess and that it is not a claimed audience. GoldenRing (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am really tempted to oppose per TRM's arguments against the inclusion of the Olympic hockey final, nearly all of which apply here. Instead, I will simply note that Oxford says the average viewership is around 100 million worldwide. The 400 million figure was evidently a one-year figure, and a questionable one at that. Resolute 23:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Even a figure of 100 million is remarkable considering the two universities only have around 40 thousand current students combined. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. While the exact figures can be debated, it is clear that this is a widely followed event not only in the UK but elsewhere, involving two universities with worldwide reputations. 331dot (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be a mistake to suppose that everybody here in the UK is a fan of the boat race; there is a significant minority which opposes the event and its heavy media coverage. Their viewpoint is that it symbolises (in a bad way) Oxbridge, unearned privilege and the Establishment. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments at the original discussion. BencherliteTalk 20:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This is a minor university-level sporting event, open only to two institutions. Yes there's a lot of interest among alumni (many of whom have powerful positions in politics and the media), but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that this is an insignificant amateur event. The same arguments against NCAA also apply here. I am very suspicious of the way that the Boat Race was posted this year - it felt very much like a stalking horse for the following NCAA story (I would have opposed both if I had been around). Modest Genius talk 15:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Just a question, how many other "minor unversity-level sporting events" draw an annual worldwide television audience of in excess of 100 million? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Given the number of international-level rowers (including Olympic and World Championship medallists) who compete, to say that it is a "university-level" sporting event only tells part of the story. And yes it's only open to two universities, but if any two other universities can set up an annual rowing challenge that gets similar national and international coverage and interest (not just among alumni, of course), I'll support that for ITNR too. It's worth pointing out (again) that Trenton Oldfield chose to disrupt the 2012 race because he knew he would get massive publicity for doing so, rather than (say) interrupting the Oxford-Cambridge football match or even a Premier League football match. BencherliteTalk 11:01, 12 May 2014 (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.

Post-archive discussion

Not getting anywhere and doing it particularly slowly. Discussion stalled, no further action. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 28 May 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.

The consensus was 50:50, or 60:40 if you're that opportunistic. Our standards for ITNR should be much higher. Remember, our standards should have been it should be automatically posted ITN/C and ITN/R every time the event happens. In this case, the discussion was very much split. –HTD 11:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess the arguments were weighed up, not just a simple vote count. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
That's what I'd always hear in "close calls" such as this; it's like a lawsuit where both sides have an expert witness, and the jury would have to decide which expert witness' testimony they should disregard. Do you think that in next year, there would no longer be opposition to this item, if it wasn't on ITNR? –HTD 11:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should become an admin and then you could close some of these discussions in a manner that would satisfy you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK, everyone who is not a party to the discussion is allowed to close discussions. –HTD 11:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Then feel free to remain not a party to future discussions so you can close them to your satisfaction. Job done! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You still haven't answered how this result observes ITNR original purpose: that each nomination is assumed to easily pass through ITN/C. In this case, the ITN/C and ITNR nomination didn't. –HTD 12:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It has consensus to be added to ITN/R. That's how things work in Wikipedia. If you're really keen, I guess you can always nominate it for removal next year. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
What's our "level" of consensus? "Regular" (50:50) levels as per other discussions? Overwhelming consensus as what was originally intended? And why wait until next year? –HTD 12:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Consensus includes weighing up arguments, that includes discounting crazy theories that a sporting event watched globally by millions and millions of people is considered a "minor" event. Nowhere is "overwhelming consensus" mentioned or required. And finally, yes, why wait. Why not nominate it for removal from ITN/R, that'd be really helpful! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Arguments that include that it is watched by "400 million", later reduced to "100 million", when it is watched by 6 million people in its home country (or "countries"). That would entail massive audiences outside of its home country in a lot of countries to even reach 100 million. It would mean that it has be watched by more Canadians than they did for the Olympic ice hockey gold medal game. Madness. –HTD 12:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The only madness is that you abjectly refuse to accept that this is a global phenomenon, unlike ice hockey which is seriously niche. The sooner you get over that, the better for you! Your statistical "analysis" demonstrates only one thing, you shouldn't attempt any statistical "analysis" in future, seriously. Have you suddenly declared that the BBC is no longer a reliable source? Or do you have alternative evidence? Anyway, who cares. The item is now ITN/R, and you're welcome to nominate it to be removed. Otherwise the debate is over until next Easter. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It's been basically like this:
Me: This 400 million figure doesn't add up.
You: It's from the BBC.
Me: Nope. Even at 100 million it doesn't add up.
You: The BBC is legit. Deal with it.
Let's forget about ice hockey, which is niche in several countries, in the same way cricket is niche in South America. The Europa League final was expected to draw 60-70 million worldwide. While everyone knows that the Europa League is a losers' tournament, there's still plenty of interest in this event, as evidenced by the 33,000 people who traveled from the Iberian peninsula to Turin. The Wikipedia article has one of the highest pageviews. Is it conceivable that more people tuned in worldwide to a boat race than a final of a European football tournament? Really? –HTD 19:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying the BBC is not correct? Why would they make that up or otherwise post it if it was not within the realm of possibility? If over 200,000 people watch it live, why is it so unreasonable to think hundreds of millions would be interested in it? 331dot (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
As for the BBC not correct, I dunno. On why would they make it up, let's just say, there's no accurate measure of that. The UK audience was ~6 million on the home country. Apparently, this year there was an audience of 130 million. You'd have to come up with 124 million more people to watch to reach that. It aired at 10-11 pm in China so tough luck there, I dunno if some cricket match preempted this on Indian TV. You could argue there could be some significant Irish and Aussie interest, but I'm not banking on having 6 million from both countries combined to watch, as their population combined is lower than the UK's. Where else? Canada? The NCAA basketball final had an audience of 200k in Canada. Do you really think that the boat race will beat a basketball tournament that was teeming with Canadians? Where else? South Africa? The U.S.? Rest of Europe? On the Europa League link that I cited, this year's UCL final is estimated to have 170 viewers. Compare those two numbers: 130 million for the Boat Race, and 170 million for Real vs. Atletico. Once's too high, the other's too low. All we have are WP:RS that either came from the organizers themselves, or their media partners. –HTD 19:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Stop trying to synthesise the answer. Wikipedia is WP:V not WP:TRUTH. I thought, with your experience, you'd know that. Stop asking us to "do you really think..." anything. It's entirely pointless. The Boat Race regularly features international standard rowers (e.g. Olympic medallists). You're really making yourself look foolish with this crusade I'm afraid. Next you'll be claiming no-one watches the Eurovision song contest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should be citing the Olympics considering you had just opposed an inclusion of the sole team sport in the Winter Olympics ("team figure skating" doesn't count) from ITNR. As for Eurovision, we could add up from each country as those could be quite easily available. Has anyone dug up TV ratings for the boat race in Germany? The Boat Race is almost certain not to pull 6 million viewers in Canada: The Stanley Cup 2nd round series between Montreal and Boston got 3.67 million. That's the #1 sports program of the week. The boat race wasn't even in the top 10 sports programs in Canada the week it was held; #10 had 155k viewers, so the boat race had significantly less than that. And that's just Canada. –HTD 19:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
(ec) (to HTD) I await some sources from you impugning the credibility of the BBC and/or its figures or sources with what you see as more accurate figures; your claims above seem to be to be just your opinion combined with speculation(as well as assuming people don't watch it on tape delay). 331dot (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Does tape delay count? It shouldn't, right, as long as TV ratings are concerned. –HTD 19:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
No-one cited the "Olympics", perhaps you're confused. I said that many of the rowers were Olympic athletes. Do you need further explanation? As for your continued objection to RS, as I've said, it's now just making you look a little foolish I'm afraid. But please continue to synthesise your answer, I'm sure someone somewhere is interested in your personal research. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Lemme get this straight: You support this because this has Olympic athletes, and oppose an actual Olympic event, that has Olympic athletes playing in the Olympics, because it's "niche"? –HTD 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope. I support this because it's globally broadcast, features international rowers (from America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada (!!), South Africa, Germany etc), some of whom row at the highest possible level of the sport (e.g. the Olympics) and the event is broadcast annually and globally (to between 100 and 180 countries), features 250,000 live spectators, and has a tradition dating back to 1829. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much suck for those Canadian rowers to find out that their efforts wasn't even on the top 10 sports broadcasts of the week. But Hey, at least they can be at Wikipedia's ITN every year, unlike those ice hockey scum that the rest of the country avidly watches but won't see their top competition in Wikipedia's ITN ever. ***claps*** –HTD 19:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm playing the smallest violin in the world for your ice hockey colleagues. At last the truth comes out. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, if there's any improvement, you switched from "OMG WATCHED BY 100 MILLION PEOPLE!" to "broadcast to between 100 and 180 countries". That's subtle. –HTD 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It's both, that's been noted for some time, and you know that. Why you'd claim otherwise is yet another example of how you go about your business. Such an insight. Time for more synthesis? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I give up. Let's use the BBC as a source. But this time, they're quoting someone else. But first, let's remember the figure: 130 million watched the boat race in 2014. These figures are for 2011:
  1. UEFA Champions League Final: 109 million
  2. Super Bowl: 106 million
  3. Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: 54 million
  4. Men's 100 meters final: 33 million
Let's say the boat race had gradually increased its viewership to 130 million in 2014. In 2011, it should have been around third, ahead of F1's finale. Can you dig that? The Boat Race > F1. 2011 Formula One season wasn't that exciting though. –HTD 23:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, as I predicted! Time for you to do something more practical now I guess. Your synthesis and opinions are fascinating, honestly someone somewhere is really loving it all, but it has no place here. Cheers, bye. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You should love the fact that in 2012, this boat race wasn't even in the top 20 most watched shows in the UK (incl. non-sports events). Now tells you something about the profile of this even in its home country.
It's also not in the top 10 sports broadcast in Australia, which is dominated by AFL and rugby league. The 10th most watched event had 1.82 million viewers. In Canada, the top TV event for 2012 was (gasp!) the much uber-maligned Super Bowl. The Boat Race? Not even in the top 10 "specialty TV" broadcasts, of which #10 had 1.8 million viewers. Of course, the Super Bowl is the #1 TV event in the U.S. Within just sporting events, the 50th most watched event had 5.0 million. If the boat race, which doesn't make an appearance, was the 51st, it'll have the maximum of 5.0 million viewers in the U.S. The only way for the boat race to reach 130 million is for a massive audience in both China and India. It's quite hard to find viewing figures from those two countries. –HTD 23:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, continue! Somebody somewhere cares. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's entirely pointless arguing with HTD over numbers and votes, this discussion is going round in circles and wasting a lot of energy. Frankly it makes no difference what HTD thinks as we have verifiable reliable sources to offer a different and objective opinion rather than one driven by some odd personal statistical crusade. The fact that HTD can't even "conceive" that the world-wide audience of the Boat Race could exceed 100 million is entirely his own problem. Let's leave it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Um, by the numbers it was 6 to 2 or 6 to 3 if you count "I'm tempted to oppose" as an oppose, which is not "50:50 or 60:40" --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • That vote count was so good, it disregarded my comments on this. –HTD 13:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Your comments did not read like opposition to me, but rather pointing out the improbability of certain arguments without taking a position... I don't think it is fair at all to count Resolute's comment as an oppose (more of a jibe over a past conversation), so even if we put you down as oppose it is still 6:3. Now, I am not going to attempt to judge the weight of arguments, just point out your comment about numbers was wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
        • So 6 supported, 3 opposed, probably 2 neither but were otherwise hostile. That's 6:3:2. Is, by vote counting terms, 60% the level of consensus that ITNR mandates? –HTD 13:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
          • As you know, consensus is not determined by %s. I also don't see any reason why ITNR should require a higher level of consensus than normal. People already take into account the more "serious" nature when they opine - it is not uncommon for someone to support a story and be neutral on ITNR or be neutral on a story and oppose ITNR. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
            • I dunno if you were here when ITNR was first conceived, but the purpose of ITNR was to have a list of recurring items in which ITN/C nominations would breeze through no matter what happens. It's not which event/award is the "top of the field". That means there should be a particularly high level of consensus. For example, if you'd suggest the FIFA World Cup Final, no one's gonna oppose without being shouted down by everyone else. Now, as for determining consensus: in this case, almost half of those who commented didn't support its inclusion. Is that high enough level of consensus? At best, that's no consensus in AFDs. As for vote counting, as what I've said, if it's a judgment call, and it's an ITNR discussion, the default should be no consensus to add to the list, because our level should be higher than normal. –HTD 13:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
              • I don't see the major beef here. We've had plenty of ITN/Rs rejected lately at ITN/C. I'm not sure why people keep insisting on counting votes either, that's simply not how it works here, it never has been and never should be. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
                • Although, if you are going to count votes, it'd be nice to have them counted correctly. I see 6 supports and 2 opposes - 75:25. GoldenRing (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2014 (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.

Winner of the Dadasaheb Phalke Award

Consensus exists to add this award to ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 29 May 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.

The award is presented by the Government of India for lifetime achievements in the film industry. It is considered as the highest award in the Indian films. Consecutively Pran (actor) (2013) and now Gulzar (2014) have appeared in ITN with blurb and images. I hence propose to make this annual award an ITN/R with the recipient’s name being highlighted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - notable cultural award that has been posted w/minimal objections the last two years. It's inclusion provides some balance to the western movie awards we post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable award relevant to 1/7 of this planet's population. As Thaddeus said, including this will provide some diversity in movie awards. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per everyone else. The Indian film industry is a big one and should be represented in ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Much needed. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support I tend to find the recipient articles need a lot of work, so we just need to be mindful that while we're happy that this award is notable and should be ITNR, we have to maintain a high standard (of grammar and NPOV) in the nominated articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2014 (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.

Aye or, um, neigh?

Sub-nominations archived, so archiving the main discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 22 July 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.

Feel a few more horse races need to be added to the list. But I didn't realize we needed to discuss, so I was a bit too bold. My bad, but is this good? Here's what I wanted to do: Adding the biggest races. Comments? Montanabw(talk) 19:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the nominations are as follows...
Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Triple Crown is already on the list, so we don't need to list the Belmont Stakes. Unless a horse wins the Crown, the winner of the Belmont isn't really notable enough for ITN. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I basically see your point, hence the qualifier, but if you wanted to put the Belmont up with the Triple Crown mention already in there, I think that would work too. Non-horse racing fans might not know to look for Belmont results in a search for the Triple Crown. Perhaps modify the entry there to say something like "*Belmont Stakes if the winner of the Derby and Preakness wins the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing"? Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The current circumstances of a horse winning all 3 races would have the winner of the Belmont Stakes being posted anyway. –HTD 22:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Right, but isn't the idea of this page to alert people to possible ITN events in advance?? Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Not really. Per the note at the top of the Wikipedia page "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." So the point of this page is really to discuss whether items are notable enough to be automatically qualified for the ITN slot, as long as they have been adequately updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, then I'd still add the Breeders Cup Classic and the Epsom Derby, which are comparable; Epsom is the UK equivalent to the Kentucky Derby and the Breeders' Cup is touted as the international championship. I'd also consider adding the Dubai World Cup, with its 10 million dollar purse, the richest horse race in the world. Montanabw(talk) 20:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. Horse racing is a fairly minor sport but already has '3+' stories per year just on ITNR. That's enough in my opinion. The Grand National may be of interest to non-fans of the sport, but the Epsom Derby really isn't. Modest Genius talk 15:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Just because it's on the list does not MANDATE an annual story, does it? But "minor" sport, nonsense! That is merely your uninformed opinion. For example, horse racing is the second most popular spectator sport in the UK next to soccer [10], thus Epsom is clearly relevant. The Breeders' Cup Classic and the Dubai World Cup are viewed by millions. You have five marathons on the list, at least five cricket championships (both of which have less spectator interest than horse racing worldwide), dozens of national football/soccer championships, and so I guess just because it's not your thing doesn't mean it isn't newsworthy. Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Really? Are you claiming that more people worldwide attend horse races or watch them on TV than e.g. cricket or football? I strongly disagree with that assessment. Three stories is fine, no need to add to them. Modest Genius talk 22:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Re "mandate"; There are reasons that ITNR stories aren't posted, but an event should not be on the list unless there is at least the intent to post it every year. Inclusion on the ITNR list means that an event is presumed to be sufficiently notable without discussion every year subject to an update and article quality. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, I suppose you are right about the Preakness and the Belmont unless there is a triple crown (but maybe link Belmont Stakes in the current ref to the triple crown so it's easier to find?) But for the same reason, I would strongly encourage adding the Breeders' Cup Classic and the Epsom Derby to the list. Montanabw(talk) 18:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Sometimes it's easier to do this by the numbers, so I'll try to help out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added another proposal below, similar to TRM's idea on "if Kentucky Derby winner ..." but slightly different. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposal to add the Preakness Stakes if the Derby winner wins smells a bit of WP:CRYSTAL - the story is really, "This horse might go on to win the triple crown.". GoldenRing (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Breeders' Cup Classic to ITN/R

No clear consensus to add this to ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 22 July 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 the article suggests, "The Classic is considered by many to be the premier thoroughbred horse race of the year in the U.S.". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. With four rugby union stories per year and five (yes, FIVE) marathons, there's no good reason to prevent the one of the most historic, prestigious and richest horse races in the world being ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: The Breeders' Cup series is considered an international championship and the Classic is the richest and most prestigious race of the series. Five million dollar purse. Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my reasoning above. Three horse races is enough for ITNR, no need for more. Furthermore, there's no evidence of this being posted in previous years. Modest Genius talk 22:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, why are there five marathons then? Or a kazillion rugby and cricket matches? Your reasoning on this fails. Montanabw(talk) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you think those should be removed, please suggest it. I agree that there are too many marathons. Rugby (4 stories per year for union, 2 for league) and cricket (3 per year) seem about right, given the worldwide popularity of those sports, which are far in excess of horse racing. Modest Genius talk 18:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - is the Breeder's Cup widely followed outside the US? I am very hesitant to add a US race that is well below the KY Derby and probably below the Preakness/Belmont in terms of cultural importance unless there is significant international interest. --ThaddeusB (talk)
    • The Breeders' Cup is followed in the UK, as seen in the advanced search here, it gets coverage by the BBC and the major newspapers there, though @Tigerboy1966: is in a better place to assess this. The race series is promoted as an "International" championship and does draw some European horses, though it has always been held in North America and I don't think a European horse has yet won the Classic. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is. The Kentucky Derby is, and so - to a lesser extent - are the Preakness and Belmont, but I can't recall ever seing anything about the Breeders' Cup. Neljack (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Thoroughbred racing isn't the only horse racing in the United States. There is standardbred racing and all its triple crown races, Hambletonian Stakes, Little Brown Jug, Cane Pace, etc etc. The Hambletonian predates the Breeders Cup by nearly 60 years. And its a Triple Crown race while The BC isn't....William 19:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: But harness racing is not particularly newsworthy by any neutral assessment, The Hambletonian gets about zero mainstream press coverage, sad to say, and it is not an United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing race, it's part of a much smaller "triple crown of harness racing" circuit. That sucks, but it's reality. When NBC or FoxSports covers harness racing and the result hits the AP newswire, then you'd have a case. Many people can tell you who won the Kentucky Derby, but even I (who can rattle off all the triple crown winners and at least 40 Kentucky Derby winners) can't name a single Hambletonian winner off the top of my head. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Here's last year's Hambletonian news[11] off the AP newswire on a page actually titled 'The Big Story'. Sad to hear you can't name one Hambletonian winner. A classic horse racing book 'Born to Trot' told the story of Rosalind the 1936 winner. As for the Hambletonian not being a 'United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing race', of course it isn't because thoroughbreds and standardbreds don't race against one another. That's reality as if the fact that the BC isn't a triple crown race in its branch of horse racing. Does that suck also?...William 23:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment: You missed my point, I suppose because you apparently missed my sarcasm. Yes, I too read the children's book by Marguerite Henry, maybe 40 years ago and I read The Black Stallion's Sulky Colt too. Just because there are books written for 12 year olds doesn't mean harness racing is covered by much other than a niche local market, mostly on the east coast and in parts of continental Europe. It's a bummer, but it's reality; flat racing has far more spectator interest. The Breeder's Cup is broadcast live on one of the big four major networks. When was a harness race so prominently shown? Montanabw(talk) 05:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Thaddeus's comment. Neljack (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with others - three racing stories per year is enough. Seven would be definitely excessive. This is an issue of WP:BALANCE. GoldenRing (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2014 (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.

Add Epsom Derby to ITN/R

Added by User:Montanabw per clear consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:11, 27 May 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 the article suggests, "It is Britain's richest horse race, and the most prestigious of the country's five Classics. It is sometimes referred to as the "Blue Riband" of the turf." The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. With four rugby union stories per year and five (yes, FIVE) marathons, there's no good reason to prevent the most classic of classic of horse races being ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: As noted in my more disorganized post above, horse racing is actually the second most popular spectator sport in the UK, following football/soccer (I'm a Yank, it's soccer over here). And Epsom is the most prestigious of the flat races in the UK. Montanabw(talk) 19:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Beyond all question the most historic, valuable and prestigious race run on the flat in Britain, and arguably at least the second-most significant flat races in Europe - will command media attention outside the world of racing too in terms of presence on tv news, news pages of printed media. While it doesn't have quite the same public reach as the Grand National, it is still worthy of ITN/R for my money. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my reasoning above. Three horse races is enough for ITNR, no need for more. Furthermore, there's no evidence of this being posted in previous years. Finally, the biggest horse race in the UK (in terms of public interest, media coverage etc., rather than prize money) is clearly the Grand National, not the Derby. Modest Genius talk 22:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Another illogical reason. Things not added to ITN in the past may well be due to lack of knowledge/interest by WP:Horse racing editors in how ITN works, I've edited WP for eight years and never really paid any attention to it before. It's a quaint little corner of wiki that I hadn't discovered, but now I'm interested. ITN editors may not realize how notable horse racing is/horse racing editors may not understand how to submit things to ITN. Montanabw(talk) 16:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
      • What relevance does the engagement of a wikiproject have to an ITNR listing? I don't think I'm the one being illogical. Modest Genius talk 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It did appear ITN in 2013 [12]. Tigerboy1966  20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The actual discussion is at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/June_2013#.5BPosted.5D_Ruler_of_the_World_wins_the_Epsom_Derby - it was a controversial posting and a very close !vote. To quote the posting admin: "The question of whether the race generally is sufficiently notable remains unresolved, but this particular running had an exceptionally noteworthy outcome." So I'm not convinced that one posting should create a precedent for posting the Derby every year. Modest Genius talk 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for posting the link. I don't normally get involved with ITN. I can see the sense of some of your points but think that if you are going to have the Kentucky Derby in there, there's no argument for not including the original version. However, I can see that you could extend that argument forever: if the Derby, why not the Arc, if the Arc, why not the Japan Cup etc etc. If it were up to me I'd add the Derby as the most important race in the history of the sport and then pull up the drawbridge. As an additional thought, how do we define a "minority sport"? Baseball is a minority sport in most of the world, but a major one in the US. Tigerboy1966  20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Baseball is not a minority sport in countries such as South Korea. In that country, cricket is a minority sport. They even resorted to removing cricket at the 2014 Asian Games (which would've been played for the first time) because they don't have facilities, only to reconsider since the South Asian countries begged for its re-inclusion (apparently, the Cubans didn't fare as well when they begged the Euro-centric IOC for baseball to return in the Olympics). The only "majority" sport everywhere is association football, even in the U.S. because every child apparently plays that now. –HTD 22:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a poor reason. Tigerboy is correct that Epsom is the wellspring of all the others, as such significant and noteworthy, but also widely covered in the UK and I presume throughout Europe, probably everywhere except the USA (where we only care about sports that happen in the USA, save for the Olympics); there is no question that the Kentucky Derby has long been viewed as notable for ITN, as has the Melbourne Cup. The Grand National may be famous as the best-known steeplechase in the world, but Epsom is actually every bit as significant (maybe more, Tigerboy??) Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Massively more significant to the sport and industry itself I'd say - it's impact on breeding alone is enormous. Nijinsky and The Minstrel's victories in the Derby were probably what established the pre-eminence of the Northern Dancer bloodline, in Europe at least. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support significant cultural impact in the UK. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Probably the most significant race of its kind here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The most important British horse race aside from the Grand National, which - as a steeplechase - is a quite different sort of race. Old, prestigious and popular. Neljack (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Appears to be pretty strong consensus to add, so i did. Feel free to revert if we must discuss further. Montanabw(talk) 05:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Three racing stories per year is enough. We need to maintain some sort of balance. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2014 (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.

Add Belmont Stakes iff a Triple Crown is on the line

No clear consensus to add this, I suggest that should such a Triple Crown take place, we note it, rather than speculate that it could happen. That doesn't mean to say it couldn't be nominated at ITN/C at any time in the future of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 22 July 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.

This is a hybrid of what we already have (iff Triple Crown won) and TRM's Montanabw's brainstorming (add Preakness if won by KY Derby winner). The logic is that in years when the Triple Crown is on the line, there is a ton of interest in the race. The result doesn't determine the interest before hand and shouldn't determine our coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Question: If a horse wins the triple crown, which occurs if they win the Belmont after the Derby and Preakness, and that would be very newsworthy because it hasn't happened since 1978. If a horse wins two out of three, such as, most recently, I'll Have Another, is your proposal to do... what? if the horse loses the Belmont, it's pretty common, it's a minor story. My suggestion is to go with TRM's proposal (which I think was originally mine, but no matter) and add the Preakness if won by the Derby winner, as that's the newsworthy point, but I'm questioning now because I'm not sure what you are proposing...?  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
    I am suggesting covering the Belmont if a horse won the Derby & Preakness and is racing in the Belmont. My logic is the possibility of a triple crown increases pre-race coverage/interest of event and the the result doesn't affect that. It also means slightly less ITN items since the Derby+Preakness winner might not race the Belmont (happened recently), resulting in 0 stories instead of 1 compared to covering the Preakness, or the triple corwn coudl be won (not likely, but who knows) resulting in 1 story instead of 2. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal; I suggest that the "in the event of another Triple Crown Winner" be removed and replaced with:
    • Kentucky Derby
    • Preakness Stakes(if won by the Kentucky Derby winner)
    • Belmont Stakes(if the Triple Crown was at stake)
331dot (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I think that was kind of what I tried to do initially.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 19:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Fair enough. Neljack (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment In general I am supporting of the concept (although am undecided on the third race if it should only be for a triple crown win, or even for having lost), however, as I mentioned no ITN/C today, I think that the bolded story should be the horse itself, not the race. The real story is "xxx horse won the yyy race and now only has one more race to win for the triple crown."--kelapstick(bainuu) 15:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Belmont is still notable even if the horse making the Triple Crown try loses, as it gets more attention when the TC is involved(the attendance at the event is much higher when the TC is on the line, for example). 331dot (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have made the change as I listed above; please alter it or remove it if you oppose or think it should be different. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentExperts believe the Triple crown is incredibly difficult to win1 and some say it may never happen again. So winner of the US triple crown may be a very high bar for ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the triple crown is the right thing for ITN/R, not this proposal. GoldenRing (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Derby is notable on its own as a race; and the Belmont is notable when the Crown is on the line(win or lose). Both in those circumstances receive a great deal of coverage and attention, as well as large crowds at the event(the recent Belmont had the third-largest crowd of all Belmonts). 331dot (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is very speculative and as is mentioned by several posters above, there is probably enough ITNR listed horseracing already. It doesn't affect the fundamental notability but bulk nominations of a particular subject like this look very much like fancruft - i.e. we should have more coverage of this area, not that these actual noms are in themselves notable. 3142 (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There are four horse races on the list(not including the Belmont which I added); that doesn't seem excessive to me. There are 8 car races, 9 soccer championships, 8 film awards, and almost 200 national elections and changes in head of state(in theory, every nation plus UNSC and EU). As for "fancruft", I am not a huge horse racing fan but I recognize that these races get large amounts of coverage and attention when dealing with the Triple Crown. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2014 (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.
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.

Soccer Records

No point in continuing this. BencherliteTalk 06:19, 9 July 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.

I would like to propose adding all soccer records to ITN/R. Whether it's Lionel Messi scoring the most goals in a season against various national and international teams, or Miroslav Klose scoring the most total world cup goals across multiple cups of any player, it seems that no criteria is too narrow to get people excited about soccer records. The argument for is always "it's the most popular sport in the world" (and conversely, any comparison of "X sport" is that "X sport is not as popular as soccer"). Posting these records as blurb items is inevitable, so rather than waste time bickering about it, they really just ought to be ITN/R. --166.205.68.32 (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This is extremely pointy, and should be closed as not being a serious proposal. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It's sincere and totally legit. Messi scores the most goals in a season, this World Cup guy, and the only sports MVP award, soccer trivia goes up. Even a retiring coach gets posted. Every nom gets the constant barrage of "it's the most popular sport in the world" and drive-by supporters who only come to heap praise on the worlds most popular sport. It's impossible to stop, but people still try, the discussion gets heated, and feeling hurt. Why bother? Just ITN/R it, because it is totally inevitable. --166.205.68.24 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sports records should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I don't see where the community would consider any sports records to be automatic in the way that ITNR expects. --Jayron32 00:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron, we review each case one-at-a-time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2014 (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.

Elections

There appears no consensus to modify the existing ITN/R entries. There appears no consensus to add an "election ticker". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 30 July 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.

Currently, the threshold of election criteria is seriously low. Nobody really cares what Andorra does, but at least it is an independent state. I don't understand how Cook Islands though can be on any similar footing as say the US. If elections of small states were to be particulary unusual, surely it should be posted. But run-of-the-mill elections, in insignificant "states" that are not even independent and sovereign should be skipped IMHO. Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes? So what is your proposal? How do you define "insignificant states"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@TRM: same way we do with the deaths of notable people. Some people get a full blurb when posted, others just get their names on the bottom. Can't we have a similar entry to deaths and ongoing items, and the inclusion of a full blurb would be agreed in a ITNC discussion? Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
For example: James Garner is currently listed for RD, but unless one really cares and clicks on the link, a reader will not see how he died. Same way for an election in Liechtenstein, a reader would not know who won, only that there is/was an election there. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To the writer of the comment TRM replied to, many ideas have been given over the years, but none have been adopted. Please see Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And where is the formal discussion of adoption of the current formulation? Nergaal (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think elections were added with this edit in 2009 but I'm not sure about discussion. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

An intermediary solution: currently the inclusion criteria is based on List of sovereign states. This is a non-FL and to a certain degree decided by users here. Can we instead use the official UN member list? My understanding of the current formulation states that for general elections:

  1. for all UN members should be posted
  2. of non-UN members Niue and Cook Islands should also be posted
  3. of EU should be posted
  4. general elections of other entries listed List of sovereign states but not on Member states of the United Nations are disputed territories, and they "should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits"

I believe we should a non-FL article as a source, and then remove #2 as a weird exception and include it under #4. Nergaal (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because a state is not a full UN member doesn't mean it is a "disputed territory". That is your own conclusion. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am saying that between the two current lists, the differences are disputed territories [members of sovereign states but not UN members] + Niue and Cook Islands. I am not saying that the sovereign states list is wrong, but that it is not an official list; and I would rather have ITNR criteria based on official decisions and lists, rather than the cumulative opinions of users editing this page and other [non featured] pages here. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How do you define "UN Membership"? Having a seat in the General Assembly? Under that criteria Switzerland would have been excluded from ITNR until 2002. The Cook Islands are members of several UN bodies and can make treaties themselves, is that enough? What does being a FA have to do with it? 331dot (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And we are past 2002. And say it was 2001 now: what I am saying that I am fine with having some odd exceptions being discussed at ITNC, and have a snow-support for Switzerland, but I am against having implied ITNR pass [and thus no ITNC discussion] ofw odd exceptions like Cook Islands that apparently were not considered when choosing the currently existing criteria. Nergaal (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? What is the harm or big problem with doing so? You also don't know what was and wasn't intended(unless you have found records which contain that information). 331dot (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Since as far as we seem to know, that edit was made without a prior poll, we can only assume that a single editor thought if a simple formulation. That simple formulation has the side-effect of including all the UN members [well-defined, well-accepted list even by the biggest trollers] plus ONLY two, rather strange choices: Niue and Cook Islands. As can be seen at ITNC, people seem to be against including Cook Islands [and presumably its mate Niue] in this list, and the supports just agree that Cook Islands is ITNR [not that it should remain ITNR]. Nergaal (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that we should change the criterion from being a sovereign state to being a UN member. In particular, it is not clear to me why sovereign states that choose not to become UN members should be excluded. I would also point out that the list of sovereign states is based on reliable sources. It's not like editors just go on their personal opinions. If you look at the discussions on the Cook Islands and Niue in the archives, you will find extensive reference to reliable sources - that's how the initial resistance to their proposed inclusion was overcome. People provided reliable sources that demonstrated that they were accepted as sovereign states by the international community. Neljack (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
By what I am proposing, if there is a sovereign state that is not a UN member then it would still go to ITNC, just not get a ITNR auto-pass at ITNC. Nergaal (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I get that, but why should they be treated any differently based on whether they have joined an international organisation? Neljack (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
My point is to make the list shorter. If you find a shorter list of sensible countries worth an INTR free-pass that is shorter than the UN member list I would be fine with that. And UN is not just a simple international organization. Even Palestine and Kosovo are trying to get into the club. If you are outside the club and don't care to join in [like Niue and Cook], it probably means that you don't really care to get a worldwide recognition of your sovereignty and independence. Nergaal (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But they have already have recognition of their sovereignty from the international community, who have admitted them to UN specialised agencies and international treaties that are only open to sovereign states. Neljack (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
See the intro of List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent for an example of demarcation. Nergaal (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


  • I came strolling here to see if certain discussion has started or not about the Cook Island’s entry. And am content to know that am not the only one surprised to see that on main page. I understand that to counter systemic bias a common philosophy of displaying all sovereign states is done. But it is really necessary to formulate some way to not let such smaller nation’s election results get posted. On one hand we demand from nominators to prove how the news really mattered globally by producing links of various international news agencies and on the other hand we post this just because its wrapped in a common blanket. I wouldn’t mind posting election results of such countries but then we should be lenient on other entries too to not be biased. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My suggestion: remove the ITN/R for general elections, period (eg not for those of a president/prime minister/equivalent, but for the representative body). If the election is significant that it reasonably has a chance to affect world politics (as the case for bigger nations), then that can be argued at ITN/C. Note that I would even argue that for something like a US election where the control of Congress does not change and this was a result well predicted by news reports, we don't include it. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I could understand removing all elections from ITN/R, but why remove legislative elections and leave presidential elections on the list? Given that the majority of nations have a parliamentary system of government, legislative elections are probably more important than presidential elections in most countries that have both. Many presidents are largely ceremonial. To my mind, it would be bizarre if their election was on ITN/R, but not the election of the legislature where real power resided. Neljack (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Rules could be changed to indicate that only the most relevant elections in a country gets posted (i.e. German chancellor but not German president). Nergaal (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point - I would mean something lke this where the most influential office elections (US President, German Chancellor, etc.) would be the "automatic" ITN/R, and if we have to make an explicit list for this, we should do so. But other elections should be reviewed for ITN/C based on the short- and long-term impact. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Stupid questions: How about Taiwan? And the suggestion would still let countries such as Nauru have a free pass, right? –HTD 12:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Taiwan is disputed, it currently needs ITNC discussion, but does not get ITNR pass - and this would not be changed. Nauru would still get an ITNR pass, but Cook and Niue wouldn't. Nergaal (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you agree that Taiwanese presidential elections would automatically be added no matter what as long as the "standards" are met, even if they're not in the INTR list? –HTD 15:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
90% of the time yes. Nergaal (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative for having elections being treated similar to RDs

Since elections tend to be one of the most common topic of all getting ITN coverage, I think we can have an extra line at the bottom of full blurbs indicating ongoing elections similar to ongoing events. That way we can link say elections in California, and still link Cook Islands, but not give either of them a full blurb slot. The separation between a full blurb and just a link would be decided at ITNC in a similar manner how RD are decided presently. Nergaal (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Two proposals

In my view, there are some ways we can apply common sense on this elections issue. I have two proposals

  1. Post only elections that receive "significant global or regional coverage"
  2. Retain the ITNR rule on "all sovereign states" but make it a "suggested guideline" rather than a "rule"; if an editor who nominates an election at ITNR feels that an election can be contentious, then consensus at ITNC is required prior to posting. This would filter out Cook Islands but not Indonesia.

    --Colipon+(Talk) 13:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Election ticker proposal

Aircraft used for Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Ongoing: Ukrainian unrest
Elections: Lebanon — Slovenia — Indonesia — Cook Islands
Recent deaths: James Garner – Elaine Stritch – Karl Albrecht – Johnny Winter


This was very crudely done, but it gives an idea of what it might look like. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I do strongly urge editors to reconsider my "unified ticker" proposal or a variation thereof as a rudimentary framework which will address RDs, Elections, "on-going" events, as well as other systemic issues with ITN. Colipon+(Talk) 19:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Would this ticker be for all elections or would some continue to get blurbs? Because if it's the latter I can foresee a lot of arguments about just where the line should be drawn. Neljack (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
As I've proposed above, having both full blurb and ticker would mean that the difference would be decided at ITNC in a similar manner as RDs are done now. Nergaal (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that would be undesirable because it would lead to endless arguments about whether a particular country is important enough to warrant a blurb. I would have some sympathy for a ticker that included all elections. Neljack (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That happens currently with RDs and that system seems to work fine. Nergaal (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes but in this case there would inevitably be nationalistic passions involved, since we would have to make judgments about the importance of countries and their elections. It would also be a recipe for systemic bias - we'd have to be very careful about that. I just think it would be a minefield and a distraction. Neljack (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
But don't you agree there are some that are really obvious? For example, at least the US, India, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Germany, South Korea, and the UK all seem like to deserve their own blurbs to me. I don't think there would be a problem with deciding blurb vs. ticker any more than there is dispute on any other controversial nom. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure there will be clear cases - it is always the margins that are difficult, but that doesn't make the difficulties any less real. Neljack (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
We can undertake a longer exercise in deciding which country should get a blurb and which shouldn't before hand. This exercise can also include which election (PM/President/Chancellor/etc.) of a specific country should go there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
But one would also have to take account of the particular circumstances of the election. Some elections are more notable than others, even in the same country. Neljack (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support elections ticker proposal. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. I don't think we post elections frequently enough for this to be useful. At the moment, two are posted, but that's unusual. Before that, if you go back all the way to November 2013, only 9 elections seem to have been posted altogether - a bit more than one a month on average. That means that it would be rare for a ticker to include more than one item, so it would not be an efficient use of space. Alternatively, items could be kept in the ticker for weeks on end, but I don't see why that would be a good idea either. Formerip (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There are ~200 states and each gets around 2 elections every 4 years. That gives around 100 elections every year, or 8 each month. If each is left on for a week then at any time there should be on average 2 items posted at any time. Nergaal (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You're not taking into account that we only - and, presumably, would continue to only - post elections that are proposed for inclusion and have appropriately updated articles. Unless this proposal is combined with a proposal to always post every election, even if there is no content to link to, then I don't think we need a ticker to handle elections. Formerip (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
And alternatively elections can be included within ongoing. Nergaal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not that it isn't a good idea, but I fear that it's a slippery slope. My first irrational thought at this idea was "hey, lets do a sports ticker like this too", and then I realized you could argue a lot of other possible tickers of the same concept. I see no reason to highlight out the elections in a ticket and not any other types of stories, without begging the need to do the same for other areas, which would take away from the current simplicity of the ITN box. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

Ok, people don't seem to want to continue this discussion. As a conclusion, people ARE actually ok with leaving Cook Islands and Niue as ITNR? Nergaal (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, we just can't come to an agreement on what the best thing to do about it is. Some people want to just remove those two "states", others want to eliminate even more elections, some want to scrap entire sections of ITN/R. Typical Wikipedia problem, everybody agrees there's a problem and nobody agrees how to fix it. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_13&oldid=1159212054"