This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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 people always say on WP:ITN/Candidates, "Wikipedia is not a celebrity news ticker." WP is also not ESPN. ITN/R is dominated by recurring sporting events, just look at that monster list. Many of these competitions (e.g. NBA Finals, World Series) are very America-centric and are hardly relevant to a global audience. I think WP should omit sporting events from ITN outside of the Olympics and its billion-viewer audience, that's the only event with a truly global reach. It was only 1 or 2 weeks ago when over half of the stories in ITN were sporting events (French Open, NBA Finals, and some others)
Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC) — Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please nominate items you believe that should not be on ITNR for demotion. That's the only way to constructively progress your perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
More to the point, I recently proposed the idea (someone else's) to put all sports stories in an ITN sports "ticker," and while there was some support, the consensus ran against it. I suppose the name of this feature should be "In News and Sports" since that would be more accurate, as some weeks, sports dominate, which to me is a joke. Perhaps consensus will change someday. Jusdafax 08:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It isn't anyone's fault at ITN that many notable sports events occur at the same time; we can't speak to the leagues and tournament organizers and ask them to spread it out for Wikipedia. And regarding "America-centric", we have many single-country events on ITNR, not just from America- being from a single country is also not relevant(ITNC: Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one....) Removing all sports seems to be a perennial proposal- but if there are specific sports events you don't want to see, please nominate them for removal. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Can it be adequately demonstrated anywhere that these sports stories are stopping other non-sport stories from being featured? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
A large majority of team competitions on this list are centred around one or two countries, so the "America-centric" complaint is a bit off the mark when you consider the BPL, NRL, Boat Race, AFL Grand Final, etc. are also on the list. Looking over the list, I see about 16 entries that focus primarily on the US, though five of those are golf tournaments (3 majors and the 2 Europe vs. USA events). Nine United Kingdom, five Australia, three France and Eurozone, two each Canada, Japan, India. Resolute 13:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with a separate 'sports news' section, but I support the current position as well. Sporting contests are major cultural events with audiences and followings far beyond their immediate locations. I'd love to see somewhat broader cultural news as well, but the idea that we should drop sport altogether and have nothing but the most serious political stuff and disasters is not one I can support. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to see (and have asked a couple of times) which stories these sports stories are keeping off ITN? Right now, we have a grand total of four blurbs at ITN, one of which is a sports item. We have items there that date back to 29 June. Trying to actively reduce the potential pool of candidates at this time makes no sense at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is it everyone (by everyone, that excludes yours truly and includes the thread starter) notices (by notices, meaning complains about) the NBA Finals and World Series but not the just-as-wildly-followed All-Ireland Football Championships and AFL? Don't tell me more people worldwide play Gaelic and Australian rules football than basketball or baseball. –HTD 22:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The OP's complaint is invalid because many people who are not the OP care about sports. What the OP cares about is irrelevant, Wikipedia should reflect what the world-at-large cares about. And they are interested in sports. --Jayron32 00:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Arguably, no we don't following what the world-at-large cares about, otherwise we'd be filled with celebrity and entertainment news too. We do take a more academic approach, which does include sporting results, hence why it might seem out of balance, but it's also a field where nearly all events are known and planned out months/years in advance and on a regular schedule to prepare for it at ITNR. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are lots of sports entries on ITNR. But that's largely because sporting events are scheduled ahead of time and have similar importance each time they occur, so can easily be assessed in advance. That is not true of many other categories of story posted on ITN. If you have examples of e.g. other awards, meetings or regular events that you think should be on ITNR, please nominate them. Modest Geniustalk 12:01, 15 July 2015 (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.
Clarification for sporting events regarding Ongoing
I think we need to clarify that, for the sporting events here which are tournaments and take place over weeks or more, the original intent of ITNR was to post the winner of the final. I've seen a couple of instances where it's been assumed that a listing at ITNR means the whole event should sit in Ongoing for the duration. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree such clarification is needed. Ongoing is not a sports ticker. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I could have sworn that I had commented a while ago in agreement that TRM's understanding is correct, but I obviously didn't. BencherliteTalk 21:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussions links
I've added a few tags where for IMO there should be evidence of some discussion on agreeing of keeping/posting these entries to ITNR. That way, whenever somebody claims an ITNR pass at ITNC there is a clear evidence of previous consensus. Nergaal (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
And your additions have been reverted, as your templating is completely inappropriate and unnecessary. If you wish to discuss the merits of various entries, do so as we all have done, and start a discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see Nergaal's tagging to imply "this must be removed". The question of where the consensus was developed for any given ITNR is a fair question to ask and that should be answered by a link to a relevant discussion in ITN's archives (even if not off ITN/R). The tagging was to point out "hey, these don't have such, can anyone find them", with the next point of order to be for those where no such consensus can be found, to revalidate that in the here and now. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't care to start a discussion, and most of the items I've tagged I do believe should be here. However, to the non-specialist, most of these entries are not obvious why they should be. For example when somebody claims for example at IRNC a slot for Belmont Stakes because it is at ITNR, the ITNR should provide evidence to the non-specialists about some previous consensus that such an item was actually agreed on. Nergaal (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Masem might have explained my point better than I did. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
A concrete example: searching for "presidents" among the archive, I could only find Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_1#Golf where a single user in 2008 said "I think if the Ryder Cup is added, maybe the Presidents Cup should, too. I mean the both occur only once every other year, so it's not like we'd have a huge increase in events. I dunno, just a thought." Unless anything else is found, this does not seem to me a very good example of consensus. Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Tell you what; how about you try to do a few of these yourself, and ask for help if you don't find anything? Because otherwise, it looks like this is something you think is important that it be done, but not quite so important that you're volunteering to do any of it yourself. I'll do a few myself too, as penance for the snark. But hopefully you can see how just tagging and moving on is kind of annoying? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Some of the discussions seem to have been at ITNC, then added to ITNR, so you won't find them in ITNR archives. Try using WP:Wikiblame to find when the words were added to the ITNR list then work from there to see where the discussion was taking place (it might be mentioned in an edit summary or you might be able to find it through the editor's contributions around that time). That's what I did to find when the Melbourne Cup etc were added to ITNR, and I added a reference accordingly. BencherliteTalk 22:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
In the cases where items were added, say, seven years ago, when this process when just beginning, it would seem highly appropriate to nominate items which don't seem to have clear consensus for removal, rather than just aimlessly tag a few that you don't actually like. But instead of getting others to do the work for you, take some of Floq's and Bencherlite's advice and go look for the evidence yourself. If you don't find it, you know what to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2015 (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 haven't seen a single instance of this being posted at ITN (e.g. 2013 World Aquatics Championships, 2011 World Aquatics Championships etc etc), so I'm not sure why it should be listed at ITN/R. This year's "effort" was supported by three editors "per ITN/R" yet the article was incredibly poor and in no fit state for main page inclusion, much like the previous two editions. Of course, if we see a decent attempt at this in the future, we could post it, but right now, there's clearly insufficient interest in making this ITN/R-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose ITN candidates are assessed on two bases: significance and article quality/update. ITN/R relates to the former (the event in question will automatically satisfy the significance requirement), so problems with the latter are not a good reason for removing an event from ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with that being these lazy "support per ITNR" voters who do nothing about the quality because it's ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
People ignore article quality on non-ITN/R nominations too, in my experience. I agree it's a problem, but it's not limited to ITN/R events. Neljack (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Support removal. If it's never been posted, clearly it isn't notable enough to be on the list. It can always be posted through ITNC if interest in doing so(and improving the article) develops. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It was in 2013, well for the swimming part, before it became part if ITN/R. ~~
Oppose One poor quality article should not prevent it from staying on the ITN/R list, plus I rather that to the the Boat Race (greater importance, and with the Boat Race, why should being sponsored by an American bank make it a prestigious event and who are these rowers? Plus, arguing why it should be included is like arguing why the Macau Grand Prix should be included). Donnie Park (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Angry response, shit on the boat race, blah! What? Sorry the point I made originally is that this has never been on ITN, not that "one poor quality article" prevented it from doing so. Of course I always see the FINA championships in my newspaper ever year, and I never see that bloody pesky boat race.... I guess you have serious prejudices that you need to work out in public, good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] All changes to the head of government
Discussion stalled for over a month. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2015 (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 suggested above.
Change
Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits. If election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted.
to
* The succession of a head of government.
Among the G7 countries, 2 countries have pretty powerless heads of state (Germany, Italy) and 3 countries with a powerless king/queen as head of state. France is the only G7 country not sending the head of government.
Elizabeth II is head of state of more than 8% (!) of all countries in the world without having real power in any of these countries, and in Europe alone I'm counting 8 additional kings/queens/princes who are head of state.
When looking at the 28 EU countries, the most powerful position is in 3 countries the head of state, in 24 countries the head of government, and in 1 country a person who is both.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but we already list the head of government changing in most cases, when 1)head of government is combined with head of state and 2) we post general elections(XYZ party, led by John Public, wins the election). In what cases do we not post the head of government changing? 331dot (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about it further, perhaps we could add internal party elections of the ruling party that result in a change(the recent Australian change in PM). 331dot (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Unless there is a clear victory, immediately after the general election it is often not clear which parties will form a government. A month is pretty normal for smooth negotiations which parties will be part of the new government and for them to agree on the terms of the government, and until that point you might not even know whether there will be a change in the head of government. In Belgium it took in recent years once 196 days and once over 500 days after the general election to form a government. WP might have declared that XYZ party, led by John Public, wins the election (gets most seats in parliament), but after one month of negotiations Jim Private of the smaller ABC party becomes head of government and John Public stays leader of the opposition.
There can be a different ruling party without general elections. When the biggest party of the new coalition is not the same as the biggest party of the old coalition, the result is a new head of government from a different party. This is how Helmut Kohl became chancellor of Germany, and it is even more common in countries with 6-9 parties in parliament and 3-6 parties in government (yes, six different parties forming a government together is nothing strange in some countries).
What you seem to be getting at is that we should post the change in government itself instead of/in addition to the results of the election, in parliamentary systems at least? (maybe in cases where the forming of a government takes a long time or results in an unexpected leader) 331dot (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, both should be posted. Both could be combined into one blurb when a former opposition party wins the absolute majority of the seats, but I assume this is implicitly clear. Note that not every general election results in a change in the head of government, and that a change of the coalition with the same head of government (e.g. Angela Merkel did this after both the 2009 and 2013 elections) would not result in an ITN posting for the head of government by the changed rule (the election is still posted due to the existing rule for general elections). LoveToLondon (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2015 (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 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.
"Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits. If election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted."
This is ITN/R, and should list just items that are subject to recurrent posting without a need for discussion over their significance. We do not need notes such as "discussed on their own merits" and "usually posted", because the former is obvious if not listed at ITN/R and the latter is false because we only post items that aren't listed at ITN/R if they have consensus for both significance and quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't fault that logic. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I do think both of these issues should continue to be mentioned, although the current phrasing could certainly be improved. It's well worth clarifying that the ITNR listing does not include heads of government, which would otherwise be an easy mistake to make. The note about two round elections is equivalent to our existing note on the conclusion of sporting events, and helps to avoid premature nominations. Modest Geniustalk 14:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
ITNR doesn't contain lots of things, there's no need to list them all here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I would actually agree that the heads of government note should be left (as a very rare exception) as that term is commonly confused with head of state. It could even be reduced to a parenthetical note. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well I guess if we can't trust our editors to understand ITNR that's fair enough, although I still find both notes to be of no actual use whatsoever, as covered by the previous text. But I won't argue too much. I'll add some other explanatory notes to the other sections in due course I suppose, in order to help those who can't read English properly, and who get confused easily. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Why aren't all changes to the head of government covered by ITNR? A new President of Germany (could you name the current one without clicking on the link?) or Grand Duke of Luxembourg is always covered by ITNR, but when Angela Merkel or Xavier Bettel or David Cameron or Shinzō Abe or Tony Abbott is replaced down without new general elections that's not covered by ITNR. Among the seven leader at the G7, there is only one person who is not head of government (the French president). 5 heads of government of G7 countries are currently not covered by ITNR, only their King/Queen or less powerful President is covered by ITNR. Changes to the head of government (like the one currently at ITN) should be listed unconditionally at ITNR. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You are free to formally propose doing so; heads of state represent or embody their nation on the world stage and are deemed important for doing so(I believe) and usually get news coverage for that reason. Heads of government are sometimes(arguably) puppets of or rubber stamps for the head of state (such as Dmitry Medvedev or Pak Pong-ju). Heads of government also can change quite often(such as Australia's recent change which was one of several recent changes) without a major change in policies. That said, they are quite often nominated and posted in cases that warrant it, either because head of state and head of government is combined(Barack Obama) or the head of government is mentioned as part of a general election posting(XYZ Party, led by John Public, wins the election). I don't think that leaves many cases behind, but I'm not necessarily opposed to adding those remaining cases to ITNR. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Your belief is incorrect. Among the G7 countries, 2 countries have pretty powerless heads of state (Germany, Italy) and 3 countries with a powerless king/queen as head of state. Elizabeth II alone is head of state of more than 8% (!) of all countries in the world without having real power in any of these countries, and in continental Europe alone I'm counting 8 kings/queens/princes who are head of state without having real power. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
My belief is just that- my belief- and may differ from yours; it is not correct or incorrect. It's not just about power, but who they are and what they stand for. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
How much news coverage does the German head of state get in the US (or elsewhere), compared to the Chancellor? LoveToLondon (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the comments by LoveToLondon and Modest Genius. Neljack (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2015 (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.
Suggestion to add scientific news to ITN/R
In the ITN/R list there is a category for new discovery of scientific elements as an item worthy of consideration for inclusion in ITN. I'm wondering about opinions on a category for other scientific news e.g. discoveries of special properties of food (recently there was a huge media fuss over the dietary value of bacon, for example, and the article Bacon was updated accordingly with the findings of the research; currently there's a bit of a fuss over the health benefits of soybeans). Would that be something which would be included as a recurring category, or would that be more likely to be approved on a case by case basis? Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think case-by-case really, a lot of the new scientific discoveries are shot down in flames at ITNC for one reason or another (happens all the time, not peer reviewed etc), so a generic "discovery" ITNR would, in my opinion, be unworkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with TRM. How would it be worded - "an important scientific discovery"? Too vague to be useful and it wouldn't solve the issue of deciding whether something was important enough to merit posting, so nothing would be gained. BencherliteTalk 13:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think there's probably a middle ground to be had here—"science" is a very broad field, but it might not be a bad idea to discuss the merits of adding specific types of scientic news to the list, like the formal description of a new species (which from what I've seen always seem to get posted when nominated) or the discovery of certain classes of celestial bodies, or the synthesis of new elements, etc. GRAPPLEX 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I could see pretty much having an ITNR for item all new ape species or just all new homo species. Nergaal (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree that it's far too difficult per the above reasons - there are discoveries that are important to experts but not picked up by mainstream, and there are discoveries picked up by mainstream that experts already knew. It's far too contentious to give an ITNR line. We encourage more scientific news stories at ITNC but each has to be judged case-by-case. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all for the feedback, I think I will nominate some I've noticed recently in the media and that have resulted in changes/updates to articles, and see what people think. Cheers! MurielMary (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears that this featured at ITN in 2009, but not subsequently. Do we really need another baseball ITNR, or can we rely on ITNC to deal with this in 2017? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This wasn't posted in 2013? I'm surprised. As long as baseball is not an Olympic sport I oppose removing this from ITNR as it's the highest level of international competition in baseball, with teams competing from every continent (save Antarctica). I will endeavor to work on the 2017 contest artice as the event happens as I did the 2015 World Series article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It was posted in 2013. Also, there are only three ITNR entries for baseball, this is the only one for an international event, and this one happens only once every four years. If you're looking for sports that might have too many entries, perhaps look at soccer (9 ITNR entries) or rugby (8 ITNR entries). So, obviously, oppose. Resolute 20:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not looking for anything specific, thanks though for your recommendations. I'm focusing on items that appear to have no provenance to be included at ITNR. This is definitely one of them, but this is a good thing, that we'll find a consensus to keep this at ITNR. I have no dog in the fight, just a desire to see a clear consensus that this event is worthy of no discussion at all other than it meets quality standards. That no-one outside of baseball aficionados has even ever heard of it is of no relevance to this proposal. And please update the page history for the 2013 edition to ensure we know it was posted at ITNR. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (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.
Because Nergaal can't be bothered to do anything constructive about this, I'll start with his list of things he doesn't like, to see where consensus lies. I have not one single dog in this fight, I just want process to be followed, and to be pro-active in sorting it out rather than just trying to make a point. So, to whit: should the Berlin Marathon remain as ITNR? Nothing obvious on the history pages of the past four years to suggest that this has ever really been ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't find any evidence of this ever being brought up for a nomination at ITNC. The only reason I can think of to keep it is that the last several WR (Marathon world record progression) were set here. I guess it can be removed from ITNR and posted at ITNC whenever there is an actual WR. Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove Given the lack of nominations and news on this event, I agree that it probably shouldn't be in ITNR. Of course, it can still be nominated on ITNC for full consideration. Mamyles (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove given the lack of nominations. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2015 (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 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 Nergaal is reluctant to get involved in doing things properly, I've decided to do this on his behalf. So do we want the Volvo Ocean Race as an ITNR item or not? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this wasn't even even brought up at ITNC ever. Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove Given the lack of nominations and news on this event, I agree that it probably shouldn't be in ITNR. Of course, it can still be nominated on ITNC for full consideration (though recent articles as-is do not meet quality thresholds). Mamyles (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove. I don't recall this being posted before; never heard of it until seeing this listing. If it gets significant coverage, it can always go to ITNC. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove. No evidence that this is sufficiently significant to post. Modest Geniustalk 11:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed, per consensus, by 331dot. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2015 (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'll pile on the reviewing of the list by questioning this item. It was added with this edit but it doesn't seem like there was a discussion about it. First, it seems so infrequent(the page states about once a decade) that it hardly seems necessary to have it take up space on the list. Second, I'm not clear on the notability of this position in relation to poetry in general. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that this seems to UK only, which covers only a small pool of all living poets. Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Enough trolling
Oppose: British and therefore very important. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Come on Nergaal, let's be honest about our motivations here. Me, I just want to be on the winning side. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Support as 331dot notes, this happens so infrequently that there's little value in the ITNR really, we should discuss it as and when it takes place. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Support The post has a long history, although it's probably only of symbolic importance to poetry these days, but it's such an infrequent appointment that, as TRM says, having it on ITNR saves nothing. BencherliteTalk 09:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Support We don't list similar positions in other countries. It has some prestige, but so do major international poetry awards that we don't list. Neljack (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2015 (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.
Occasionally we have a Test series between India and Pakistan. It's been listed for years at ITNR but Nergaal now objects yet refuses to do anything about it, so I'm making the proposal on his behalf here, to remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I cannot find an evidence of this even being nominated at ITN. Nergaal (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove Given the lack of nominations and news on this event, I agree that it probably shouldn't be in ITNR. Of course, it can still be nominated on ITNC for full consideration. Mamyles (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove unless it can be shown how this is important to the world of cricket; lack of news suggests it could be removed. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Neutral. I seem to remember this being added due to a discussion about listing the Ashes. India-Pakistan is the second biggest rivalry and was to balance the anglo-centric Ashes series, whilst also including India (which has the largest number of cricket players and fans in the world). If there's no appetite for actually posting this then I won't object to removing it, but I'm somewhat concerned about the resulting imbalance. Modest Geniustalk 11:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Update: I did some digging, and it seems part of the problem is that the two nations haven't played Test matches against each other since 2007, due to the 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team. Therefore there haven't been any opportunities to nominate this for the last eight years. The two nations are due to finally resume playing each other in Test cricket very soon: in December 2015. I therefore oppose removal until after that series, so we can see how much attention it draws. Modest Geniustalk 11:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Any chance you could find that discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There's some discussion here, but it's not the one I remember. I suspect it was part of an ITN/C nomination of the Ashes, but I've been unable to find it in the massive archives of that page. It must pre-date this discussion in 2009. Modest Geniustalk 12:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove which doesn't preclude it being listed via ITNC of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove - Not the same as nominating a match in ITNC. However, we still must encourage high-quality featuring. This event lacks enough attention, hampering chances for good quality. George Ho (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2015 (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.
Item removed from ITNR, which, as ever, doesn't preclude it being nominated at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2015 (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.
There seems to be no evidence that there was ever any consensus to add this to ITNR, nor is there any clear record of it being featured in ITN. Does it merit a place at ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
TBH I can't recall ever seeing this being covered by the news within the US. Nergaal (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Me neither. I'm not a golf fan, but I have heard of the Ryder Cup. Not this, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
RemoveNergaal (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove. I see this covered in the news but I don't think it is as much as the Ryder Cup. It also seems too new(which is why it lacks the coverage and prestige). The nature of the competition also seems odd (US versus the world minus Europe). 331dot (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Removal proposal: G20 summit
No consensus to remove this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2015 (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.
Past G20 Summits were posted. This year's summit did not interest everybody here. Shall we remove it as ongoing? --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Support as it seems clear that the significance of the summit is wholly determined by what happens at the time, therefore ITNR is precisely not what this about. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
How much of the lack of interest/news in the 2015 G20 conference is directly related to the events in Paris? In other words, should we expect the same thing next year? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
How do we know that? The point is that there's little reason to keep this on ITNR if we have people stating categorically that it's of little notability this year. They didn't state that with relation to the Paris attacks so I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I opposed it in part of being overshadowed by the Paris attacks, so Muboshgu is correct in at least one case. Plus, if you look at news articles about the G20, that's pretty much the headline in that the major talking point was the Paris attacks, so little new to add to an existing ITN item. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Right. If this G20 is overshadowed by Paris and therefore not newsworthy, that doesn't necessarily mean we should remove it from ITN/R. Then again, maybe it should be a case-by-case basis each year. I'm not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever, it's clear that if people are opposing this, regardless of other news, it shouldn't be ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Just because one instance was not posted does not mean the entire ITNR piece should be removed. See the US Open (tennis) a few months back - no one bothered to get the article in shape, so it was not posted despite being ITNR but that doesn't mean the ITNR is bad. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
But it really should mean that. If no-one can give enough of a shit to do anything about an ITNR, then it's clearly not of sufficient interest or notability to be featured. In fact, I would advocate a proposal that suggests if an ITNR fails to be featured because of a failure to update, it should be summarily removed. After all, if people couldn't care less about such events, why should they get a free pass at ITNC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
ITNR has never been a free pass at ITNC. It means that the importance of the recurring event should have already been discussed and thus to make sure the present instance has a good enough article and that, with some exception, it is actually "in the news", to speak. We create ITNR based on a pattern of such, and thus to remove, we should be looking again if there is a pattern of it not being updated and/or in the news. From a quick check on the ITN articles, all previous G20 from 2009 appear to have been posted (including last year's), so there is no pattern at this point to say that this should be removed; one instance not being posted due to lack of notability or article update is not sufficient to remove an ITNR. Now, for example, say next year's US Open happens and the same thing occurs: no one bothers to update the article to quality for ITNR. That would be two years in a row that the ITNR wasnt updated, which I would then agree that we have a pattern to discuss its removal as an ITNR item. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, a little TLDR to be honest. The bottom line is that there's little point in keeping an ITNR if no-one is interested in the content, and no-one is interested in updating it. ITNR is almost invariably a free pass at ITNC, very rarely do we not post an ITNR if it's been updated sufficiently. We don't just post things because it's a slow period, we shouldn't post things that aren't of interest to anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
And the G20 story wasn't posted not due to lack of interest, just that in the scope of other events it was a yawner. I'd also point out that its article was in weak shape, but checking years past, the respective G20 was in decent shape at ITN posting (eg for 2014 [1] on the day before it was posted). The point is: we need a pattern of disinterest to suggest removing from ITNR due to disinterest. One data point is not a pattern. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No we don't. We need a consensus to remove it, no matter how that consensus is determined. Perhaps you've lost sight of how Wikipedia works, but it's not on a statistical analysis of events, it's on human interest and subjective interaction. In any case, I'm done here, I don't believe the G20 is of any interest to anyone really, it barely scratches the surface of news outlets, and has been strenuously objected to this year at ITNC. But hey, let's keep it at ITNR because .... because .... no reason. Perhaps you've forgotten that removing an item from ITNR doesn't preclude it from being nominated at ITNC, which would be a useful exercise considering the G20 newsworthiness is entirely related to the content of the G20 summit, and doesn't have some pre-determined significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Every previous G20 submit as best as I can tell was posted at ITN. There's precedence for this so it was put into ITNR. Removing it because this one single time it was deemed not as notable as other G20 ITNCs or other current events makes zero sense given that ITNR is not a guarantee of posting. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons TRM gives, keeping in mind that being on ITNR means that the recurring event is generally of interest to post to ITNR but requires that the specific event at that time has merit and that the article is up to spec, all determined at ITN/C. In this specific case, the G20 summit was far overshadowed by the Paris attacks, and furthermore nothing seemed to come out of it. If the Paris attacks hadn't happen, I suspect we would have posted it for lack of any other news. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose removal; I think this was overshadowed by the attacks and would have been posted (assuming quality was good) had it been more prominent in the news. If this isn't posted the next time it happens, I would probably be more willing to see it removed, but I think this year was an exception. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Support summits like these are basically junkets. It's good that world leaders mingle, even the hostile ones. But that is not news. Basically every ITNR item should be removed unless there was an RfC on adding that specific item and that specific item alone. As we all know, if real news comes out of one of these events, it can always be posted on the merits. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose without prejudice for reconsideration if the next event is similarly not newsworthy (which I suspect, but WP:CRYSTAL), but one event does not make a pattern. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment the confusing thing here (and Medeis summarises it nicely) is that this is a jack shit meeting which perennially achieves jack shit. G8 summits are something different, something much more significant and notable with more substantial and important outputs. The difference between now and a year or so ago is that some of us now have the bottle to question this permanent inclusion. What is wrong with just leaving this to the community to decide year-on-year? For this year to be almost universally derided and opposed (and there's little mention of the Paris thing, so don't bring that in), it seems embarrassing and stupid to include this as something that has universal support. Let it go by ITNC for the next year or so, see how it goes. I know where my money is. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's fair to argue that in general G20 summits compared to G8 are less significant and thus reason to remove from ITNR, as Medeis argues; I don't necessarily agree that the G20 is not that less significant to not be posted, but Medeis' argument is in the proper spirit of ITNR. The issue I have with some arguments given here that we should remove the ITNR because one instance was not posted. ITNR is specifically designed to require discussion and never was a guarantee posting if there are problems with importance or the article's quality for that specific instance. We have in general been doing a good job of late of making sure ITNRs don't automatically pass through without article scrutiny, so the process works. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but this year's nomination has hit the nail on the head. It's a meaningless meeting that achieves nothing and has only been featured at ITN simply because it's ITNR. It's not article scrutiny that's the issue, it's significance, relevance. But it's clear to me that I'm wasting my time here, the meeting will be kept and we'll do this all again next year when the next G20 summit amounts to jack shit. No probs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I highly object to the term "jack shit". There was no call for adding the word "jack". μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Probably this should be removed from ITNR, but it could be considered for an ongoing ITNR entry? Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow. What is an "ongoing ITNR entry"? If you mean that G20 summits should be removed from ITNR but should be added to "ongoing" whenever they occur, then that isn't what ongoing is for (as shown by the current failure of another world leaders' summit to get support to go straight to ongoing). BencherliteTalk 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the comment makes no sense. Could you re-phrase so it can be better understood? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't give it a full blurb but allow it to be at ongoing. Nergaal (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not how ongoing works - and changing the rules for ongoing for just one item won't work either. BencherliteTalk 17:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep on general significance, usually a major world news event, if Wikipedia article quality were sufficient to provide useful information, I see no harm in posting it on the main page. --Jayron32 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Suggestion to add LPGA grand slams to ITN/R
No consensus to add this right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2015 (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'd like to suggest that the five LPGA grand slams are added to ITN/R. This would add an additional five golf stories to the ITN list per year. Down under, LPGA has become much more popular in recent years due to the huge success of Lydia Ko, a young NZ golfer, but even apart from that, women's golf is in the news when the tournaments are played. The individual tournaments are: ANA InspirationWomen's PGA ChampionshipU.S. Women's OpenRicoh Women's British OpenThe Evian ChampionshipMurielMary (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Without opining on the merits of this idea, I think we should finish giving the ITNR list a good review before adding to it. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Support The LPGA is increasingly big - the majors get considerable international media coverage. This will also help address the systemic bias in terms of gender in our coverage of sports events. In reply to 331dot, I see no reason our review of the ITN/R can't involve additions as well as removals - I'm sure we are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. Neljack (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the systemic bias is completely ours, but that of the media specifically and society more broadly. Women's sports don't usually have the news coverage and fan base of those played by men. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. a) As far as I am aware, none of these events have ever been successfully nominated at ITN/C. Try that first. b) We have more than enough golf entries on ITNR as it is. Adding these too would give it more entries than any other sport, which doesn't seem justified to me. c) Unfortunately the fan and media attention given to these events is far below the corresponding men's majors (which are also open to women). d) The articles on the 2015 instances of these events are all no-where near ITN standard, consisting of results tables only. That indicates a lack of editor interest in the topic. Modest Geniustalk 12:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per the reasons Modest Genius states. I would stress that not being ITNR does not mean that the event is prohibited from ITN and any of the suggested events can be nominated through the regular process. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Neutral but effectively oppose for now. I'd like to see at least one of these go through the regular ITNC process so that the extent of news coverage can be judged (as well as the interest of editors in improving the relevant articles). Then we can see whether ITNR is the way forward. BencherliteTalk 12:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment on ModestGenuis' points b) if there are too many golf events on ITN/R then maybe some of the men's golf events need to be proposed for deletion e.g. Ryder Cup and Presidents Cup which are on ITN/R in addition to the 4 men's gold grand slams?? In addition, there are other sports on the list with nearly as many entries - motorsports for example has 8 stories per year. c) the men's grand slams are technically open to women but it's almost impossible for women to achieve entry to them - the Masters for example is invite-only to the top 50 golfers in the Official World Golf Ranking, which is a system for ranking male golfers (LPGA wins are not counted when calculating the rankings). d) Claiming "lack of editor interest" is a circular argument. Maybe the reason for lack of editor interest in women's golf articles is that those editors look at Wikipedia and think it's not a place which values women's sport - given the very low number/quality of articles on women's sport and the lack of exposure on the main page for example - and don't bother writing here about it? What would happen if there was lots of women's sport in Wikipedia, I wonder, would that encourage/attract more writers to add content? Might be well worth the experiment of putting up some women's sport in order to see if that encourages more to be written. (In fact this does happen with ITN stories currently, brief articles are put up and once they are on ITN they attract attention and people develop them). MurielMary (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've already nominated the Presidents Cup for removal, if you'd like to try the Ryder Cup, be my guest! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@MurielMary: I would reiterate what I said in my post above; I would highly suggest that you bring up these events at ITNC when the time comes. Being on ITNR means that the community has decided that the event is always notable- which isn't necessarily the case here. Wanting to increase coverage of women's sports is a laudable goal, but this isn't the place to do that, ITNC is. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@331dot: As far as I can see, there is no mention in the ITN/R criteria that an event must first be nominated and accepted on ITN/C before being nominated and accepted to ITN/R. That is your personal response to how to deal with this suggestion, not the actual policy of ITN/R. ITN/R can most certainly "be a place to increase coverage of women's sport" if that is agreed by consensus. MurielMary (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well this particular proposal appears to have no consensus in favour so perhaps it's not the best approach at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@MurielMary: I did not claim it was a policy; I was merely stating the reality of the situation. Generally a run through ITNC gives a good idea about the event's notability and how it is received by the community. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed per consensus. BencherliteTalk 17:10, 24 November 2015 (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 Nergaal is disinclined to do anything productive about these recurring items other than unhelpfully tag them with an erroneous {{fact}} template, here we are. Does this item belong at ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove 2009 and 2013 did feature, 2011 and 2015 (which is still a stub) didn't feature at ITN. Clearly not that much interest. Just pass it through ITNC in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove as interest seems erratic, as TRM indicates. I'm also not sure the news coverage of this is there either. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove per 331dot. News coverage of event does not seem to be significant, and thus unlikely to drive users to Wikipedia to seek information of it. --Jayron32 23:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove per above. Jusdafax 05:39, 24 November 2015 (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.
No consensus to add either at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2015 (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 surprised to realize that these are missing from ITNR. At least the first one, since it is only once every 4 years should be at ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
So make a proposal for their inclusion, individually of course, so we don't get confused, including why they should be there, rather than just your surprise that they're not. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
This IS a proposal to include them. People should vote on none, one or both. Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If we include any of the two, then I'd support the Confederations Cup as the bigger one. We do have quite some football-related stories already. --Tone 17:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose both The Confederations Cup is basically a dress-rehearsal for the World Cup of the following year, the Club World Cup isn't taken seriously by anyone apart from the winners, and we have a fair amount of football anyway. BencherliteTalk 17:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Wait, are you telling me that the Club World Cup isn't taken seriously until you win it? So they're playing the final like it's a friendly/exhibition game, and the winner is determined by people playing half-assed? I hope they at least take their continent's Champions League seriously. Do they? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
In English football, supporters will want their team to qualify for, and then win, the UEFA Champions' League. I've never heard any manager or supporter or journalist say that the real target is to win the FIFA Club World Cup. It's a bit of a bonus round for continental champions. If you get knocked out, then, well, it was only a bit of fun. Getting knocked out in the Champions' League early is a big issue for a club, however. BencherliteTalk 00:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess that makes a bit of sense as they'd probably be favored to win if they bested the rest of UEFA. I wonder what the CONMEBOL teams think though, since beating UEFA is a bit hard but would make you king of the world. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose both per Bencherlite. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose both. These are effectively friendly tournaments, or perhaps one step above a friendly. Nice to win, but not really important and no-one's goal or desire. The Confederations Cup is mostly a test event for the stadiums, broadcast and transport systems that will be used at the following World Cup. The Club World Cup is a money-making exercise for each of the continental champions, who care a lot more about winning their continent than beating each other. Both tournaments receive roughly the same level of interest and media coverage as the Charity Shield or UEFA Super Cup. Interesting enough for articles, but not ITN material. Modest Geniustalk 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose both Not really serious competitions, despite their names. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2015 (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.
No consensus to remove this item from ITN/R at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2015 (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 Nergaal is disinclined to do anything productive about these recurring items other than unhelpfully tag them with an erroneous {{fact}} template, here we are. Does this item belong at ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove I see no evidence of the last four years being highlighted at ITN, at least nothing on the talkpages. If someone can point me to diffs where this was featured at ITN I'd be inclined to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove per TRM; don't recall seeing this posted either. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep on significance; most popular North American racing circuit, one of the most popular sporting event seasons in North America, highest level of competition in stock car racing. Last posted in 2011: [2], other years nominations have had quality issues rather than significance issues. --Jayron32 23:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove - One of risky sports ever made, but I have never gotten into auto racing in general. If it is never been posted, then remove it. Removing this from ITNR does not prevent nomination of future Sprint Cups in ITNC, however. --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep – Quality concerns aside, I don't really see a need to remove this as it has the necessary notability. Simply just a lack of care to properly update the article which shouldn't be held against the significance of the event. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep - Significant stock car racing championship that is on the same level as MotoGP (motorcycle racing), Formula 1 (single-seater), World Rally Championship (rallying). – Nascar1996(talk • cont) 22:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep - The championship in the highest level of stock car racing in North America is a recurring event that should be featured every year. Dough4872 23:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep - While it's not on an international level like F1 or MotoGP, it's the top racing series in North America. However, the season articles would need to be improved much more. Alternatively, the Ford EcoBoost 400, which determines the champion, could also work as a link instead of to the season, since the 2015 Ford EcoBoost 400 seems to be in better condition than the 2015 season article. Zappa24Mati 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove - it's of significance in the US only, more so than even the NBA or the Super Bowl. 93.215.90.237 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep. And sorry, 93, but "I don't like it because it is too American" is a horrendously lazy argument for removal. Resolute 00:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
That was NOT my argument, please do not put things into my mouth I didn't say. This is not about the US, it's about this sport having only national importance. I would have said the same about, for example, Sumo or Lelo burti, which are significant only in Japan or Georgia, respectively. 93.215.90.237 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Very little would be posted if "international importance" was required. That's why such arguments are discouraged(See "Please do not" on ITNC) What matters is widespread news coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it also says "Please do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias.". Make your pick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.89.121 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I have not stated you are biased, nor did Resolute AFAIK. You did, however, oppose this because it is a "US only" event, which is not a valid argument (regardless of the country) because most of what we post occurs in a single country. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Mister Resolute did ("I don't like it because it is too American"). Anyway, that it only occurs in one country was not my argument, rather, that this event does not transcend national borders as opposed to F1 or the rugby world cup or many other sport events. 93.215.89.121 (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove - No ITN history for four years says a lot, but I disavow the reasoning by the IP, per Resolute. Jusdafax 05:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove. Motorsports in general are overrepresented at ITN-R, with on a quick glance more annual events than anything except the many forms of football. That this is one of the less noteworthy is supported by the lack of posting over the past 4 years. I can see that the national only card is not a popular one; nevertheless, merely national forms of sporting competition appear to me inherently less notable than international events. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Remove There is too much motorsport at ITNR and so purely national forms of variations of the sport ought to take a lower place in our priorities than Formula 1, which has international interest. However there seems to be no consensus here to that effect. I wonder whether the Triple Crown of Motorsport elements need to be revisited, but that's another discussion. BencherliteTalk 17:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you aware that there are supporter series in Europe, Mexico, and Canada? The Sprint Cup Series is the top of stock car racing, as F1 is the top of open wheel/single seater series. – Nascar1996(talk • cont) 18:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
No I wasn't, and looking at the 2015 NASCAR Whelen Euro Series season article (for instance) I see that it is hardly covered by non-NASCAR sources, making it of questionable importance. F1 races all around the world and has TV audiences accordingly; the Sprint Car Series doesn't and doesn't. BencherliteTalk 02:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently "Premiere Sports UK" (actually Premier Sports) is to have been the UK broadcaster - an obscure satellite/cable subscription sports channel, for a country that gets most of its main sport free-to-air on the BBC or ITV and only grudingly pays for top-level sports from the main provider, Sky Sports. That makes me take the "350 million fans" with a very large pinch of salt. BencherliteTalk 03:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Neutral seems to have declined in popularity even within the US in the past decade. Nergaal (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. This is the top level of one of the world's most popular spectator sports (stock car racing). Personally I cannot understand why, but that doesn't change the facts. Several of the !votes above argued that there are too many 'motorsport' entries on ITNR, but that's only because we lump together several distinctive sports under one heading. If we put all 'football' or 'bat/racquet sports' into one section they would also appear disproportionately large. Besides, if we're going to get rid of any of the motorsport entries it should be the special treatment we give to the Monaco Grand Prix... Modest Geniustalk 12:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep (see below) --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Remove May be the highest level in stock car racing, but pretty far down the food chain for motor racing, which should be the bar. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If a US metro area about as poor as one can be w/o touching Mexico can afford 360° stands this high around a 860m oval then NASCAR is big. The track used to be banked ~36°KeepNASCAR, 3rd paragraph says that only 15% of the 20 highest attendance single-day sporting events are not NASCAR. Not just in motorsports but every regularly held sporting event in the Solar System. Fortune 500 companies sponsor NASCAR more than any other motor sport. After analysis of List of sporting venues with a highest attendance of 100,000 or more I believe that the largest sports venue on Earth that's high enough to still look like a bowl was built for this championship! (Brazil's stadium once had 21% more but only because the crowd stood the whole game). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the largest enclosed sports venue on that list, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, was built for the Indianapolis 500, which is not a championship race, but a single race in the open wheel racing circuit in the U.S. It also hosts stock car races from time to time, but it was neither built for nor is primarily known as a NASCAR venue (though it does host a mid season NASCAR race, the Brickyard 400.) The Sprint Cup has no single championship race, it has a modified playoff format series known as the Chase for the Cup, which may or may not actually be decided on the last race. That last race is traditionally held at Homestead-Miami Speedway, which is actually pretty tiny by capacity standards. I agree this should be kept (see above) but make sure we get the facts right here. --Jayron32 21:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
All those tracks bigger than Bristol don't seem as impressive cause the stands are so low. At the limit, if you were to surround a marathon course with a park bench would you now have a stadium of 180,000? I'm seeing steel folding chairs on Google for $12. You could make 50,000+ chairs for $600K but a 50,000 seat stadium would cost like 500 times as much, which shows how much more resources are involved in high grandstands. I was aware that Indy is primarily open-wheel and was not built for NASCAR. Bristol was definitely built for NASCAR and exists for it first and anything else second. I stand corrected on one thing though, I didn't realize how little the pre-chase points actually mattered, so I concede that only the last 10 races could be considered part of the championship proper and any Bristol races are too removed from final results. I just assumed they multiplied the points of late races but not too much cause that Johnson guy was a dynasty but who won the race seemed like a crapshoot (it must take a long term average for his skill to come out or so I thought). What I said is still true if championship is replaced with series which is what I should've said. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Why would you choose to argue against a person who voted the same way as you? Meaningless waste of bits. The Sprint Cup Series is the largest or second largest sports season in North America by every single major metric (in person attendance, revenue, TV viewership, etc.) except perhaps the NFL. If any reliable metric of likely reader interest beyond "I don't personally like it" is to be used, there's no reasonable way a person would oppose posting it on significance. Article quality has been an issue in several years, but that has little bearing on ITNR issues. You don't need to convince me, and the people whose argument is "I don't like sports" or "I just don't personally think its important enough" also have little reason to be debated against, their arguments are inconsequential and impotent. So please, stop arguing with me over whether Bristol or Indianapolis is a more impressive stadium, and leave the obvious facts speak for themselves. --Jayron32 00:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess explaining side things that have been misconstrued to each other like you thought I meant Indy is not relevant to the core "arguments for keep and remove" thing. I don't have any more bits to add to the thread. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment I'm sort of inclined to move to neutral, based on some of the arguments above, but I'm not sure anyone's addressed the nub of TRM's comments, despite Jayron32's response. If the 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 articles were of insufficient quality to be posted, what makes us think things will be any better in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019? Why can't we just consider this through ITN/C if, perchance, there's a decent quality article worked up next year, and then with something substantial behind a nomination, reconsider ITN/R? --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Correction: 2015 was posted. It had a pretty decent article, and went up with no controversy. --Jayron32 15:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jayron. I'm more than satisfied now. My !vote amended. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem is the article choice. The main season articles are what usually gets nominated, but covering an entire year requires a great deal of effort. For other NA sports, we usually have a playoff or final series article to post, which is both more focused and easier to write/reference. For something like the 2016 Sprint Cup season, the followers of NASCAR would be well served to continually update and reference the article throughout the season. At that point, an ITN pass on quality would be a cakewalk. Resolute 15:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
We made it work in 2015, so I have confidence for next and subsequent years. --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] NBA Finals, the only recurring national basketball tournament?
Been open a while with no substantial support for removal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2015 (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 wanted to propose other playoffs from other nations. However, there aren't good quality articles covering every annual playoffs. I also wanted to propose removal of NBA Finals, widely covered and most anticipated recurring basketball tournament in the US. In fact, nomination on this year's event met some opposition, but it was posted anyway because... it's part of ITN/R. However, I checked past events, and they have been posted with usually unanimous support. I checked British Basketball League and Chinese Basketball Association, and the playoffs weren't well covered or noticeable. What shall I do? --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of other national or regional tourneys on the list , like the World Series, Japan Series, Super Bowl, Indian Premiere League, National Rugby League, etc. These all seem fair representations of where a sport is big in a given nation or region of nations, that its tourney finals has ITNR due to coverage. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I should have added "basketball". This is George Ho actually (Talk) 19:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The Euroleague tourney then is there as well, and that's an equivalent event. Also keep in mind that the NBA includes a Canadian team so its not strictly national, but even then, I would consider the NBA to be the most recognized organized play in the sport, and thus of large interest beyond just the US. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
We're discussing a tournament. Inherent notability is not the reason to make the Finals the recurring event. As always, it is just two cities competing for the trophy. --George Ho (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The NBA also has international players occasionally at least (Yao Ming) so there is an international element to it. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, these players played for individual US cities. George Ho (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying only international tournaments involving national teams should be permitted on ITNR? That would prohibit some events with worldwide attention like the Super Bowl. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Same logic, that we're only talking about teams representing cities, means we should get ride of the National Rugby League or the Indian Premier League too (as the clubs there also represent cities). The point is that this is basketball, a major international sport, where one of its largest audience is in the United States. The NBA finals represents a final game after a long season of play for professional players in that country. Just because the team breakout is by city does not lessen the significance of the final result. In general: if a sport is well-established to be significant in a particular country or region (basketball or Am. rules football in the US, baseball in the US and Japan, association football in Europe and South America, rugby in Australia/Oceania, cricket in England/Australia/India/Pakistan, etc.) it makes sense that even if it seems nationalistic that it would make sense a well-covered tourney/championship of that sport in that country would be ITN/R. If anything, we should consider if there's ways to expand this to sports that are not as mainstream in Western countries but to sports that still get broad attention in the parts of the world where they are popular. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 23:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Like Super Bowl or Rugby League or Indian Premier League, the Finals has two cities competing each other. But if you insist on keeping the NBA Finals, there must be well-edited pages about tournaments in other national basketball leagues. What about ones from British Basketball League? I can propose it to be added. George Ho (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You can certainly propose whatever you wish, but you would need to demonstrate its notability and news coverage. Basketball does not have the same stature or coverage in every country that has its own league. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you've mentioned the ProaA, the second-level German basketball competition, because that's never going to get approval at ITNC or ITNR. In the meantime, if you're not actually proposing to add or remove anything, can we just close this? BencherliteTalk 22:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL are the highest level leagues for their respective sports. I'm tired of George Ho always bringing up this nonsense. Just because A exists doesn't mean B also needs to exist. Fine, you may hate sports. Fine, you may hate America. I don't know anymore but every time you do something it leads me further and further into wanting to ask about you at the Arbitration Committee.Correctron (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any appetite for removing NBA, and I'd suggest this section is closed. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2015 (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 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.
Never been featured on Main Page, especially in this decade. Also, effort to make articles meet ITN standards hasn't been done for years. Also, despite prominence in the US, making awards based on general public opinion newsworthy... is not the same as merits-based awards. Now is the time to remove this from ITNR. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove per nom. Open-and-shut case. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Wait, it's not part of ITNR. I checked the page and did not see it on the list. In fact, I mistaken "Toronto Film, Festival (People's Choice Awards)" for People's Choice Awards at another section. Shall I close this now? --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed per consensus, no issue with it being renominated every year at ITNC of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (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 last annual event of Venice Film Festival that was featured in the Main Page was the 69th (2012). Without enough work and effort to make the Festival meet criteria, the Festival no longer qualifies as ITN's recurrent event. --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Neutral it is almost as old as the Oscars, but doesn't quite have the impact of Cannes. Nergaal (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove. We don't need four different film festivals, and film is overrepresented anyway. This festival seems to be of interest to those in the industry only - a view that is backed up by the lack of attention & posting in recent years. Modest Geniustalk 12:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove Is it second only to the first- or second-most notable European film award festival. Or, per Nergaal, how many of these "second to" film awards do we need at ITNR? We can re-visit this should it be nominated at ITNC in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove. The article states this festival "has become the most prestigious international film festival in the world" but upon skimming the article it's not clear to me on what that claim is based on. I'm kind of actually neutral on this as well, but in this situation that equates to a 'remove' in my mind. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep - a big three festival. 93.215.94.140 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove: Not being posted in three years is a pretty good indicator this isn't ITN/R material. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove per Kudzu1 and TRM --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Addition proposal: more winter sports
No consensus to add anything suggested here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2015 (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 only current entries on winter sports are the hockey entires, the annual alpine skiing cup, and the quadrennial Olympic Games. How about adding
They do get quite a bit of attention at least in Europe and perhaps a bit in North America. Please vote for none, some (which ones) or all. Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Four Hills is a good idea - since there's a single winner. The problem with Figure skating is that there are 4 winners - singles and pairs. So it makes a lengthy blurb. Biathlon ... well, I guess Four Hills get stronger coverage. Also, Ski jumping World Cup would be an option. --Tone 17:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment have any of these been successfully nominated at ITNC before? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if they were even nominated. I'll nominate Four Hills in January, let's see what happens. --Tone 20:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose all try nominating them at ITNC, or providing some evidence as to why they should be ITNR rather than just make this vague post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose except figure skating; biathlon and ski jumping have never been in the mainstream unless at the Olympics but then biathlon have never been and ski jumping, from what I heard have not been since Eddie the Eagle and never have been before that but then the UK will throw weight on anybody who take home a gold medal nowadays. Also, I think all sports in ITN/R should be those that headline the sports section globally, not whatever gets regular news coverage and I can see plenty that shouldn't be in ITN/R. Donnie Park (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Refresh the discussion on some current entries
No consensus to do anything with this generalist approach to adding or removing items from ITNR. Advice for the future: be specific, and take things one nom at a time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2015 (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.
IMO some of these entries don't seem to have a linked discussion showing recent obvious consensus to have (or keep them) at ITNR.
film awards seem to be a bit too numerous; specifically Venice Film Festival (Leone d’Oro), Berlin International Film Festival (Golden Bear), Toronto International Film, Festival (People's Choice Award), Filmfare Awards (Filmfare Award for Best Movie)
theatre: Laurence Olivier Awards
tech: CES and E3 I think were refused at ITNC since 2011
all 3 badminton entires
Canadian football's Grey Cup
rugby LEAGUE has 3 entires, but I can't recall them even being nominated at ITNC
horse racing has a surprising large amount of entires; at least Melbourne Cup should be rediscussed
Netball World Championships - not sure this was ever nominated
At least some of these should be rediscussed. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
So nominate them for removal from the list, just as I did on your behalf several times. It's really not difficult. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to start 10 different nominations. I was hoping to see what others consider to be obvious removal candidates before starting them. Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Having ten possible removal candidates mentioned without starting a proper discussion for any of them will only end in chaos, particularly when you say that we should rediscuss "at least some of them" (i.e. not all of them - but which ones don't you want to discuss?) BencherliteTalk 17:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Please start individual discussions with your reasoning for one or more of these. We simply can't discuss all of these in one section, you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The Grey Cup has been posted for the past several years, and I'm already prepping the article for this year's championship in advance of an ITN nomination this coming Sunday. Resolute 00:37, 24 November 2015 (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.
