Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

[Closed] A possible addition for Discoveries / Science

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, though I don't have cemented wording for this, that scientific discoveries that

1. are the result of a paper recently published in a peer-reviewed journal (perhaps requiring a journal with a high impact factor or similar measure of importance)
2. are reported in at least 3 major general-interest mainstream newspapers/news networks (the likes of BBC, NYtimes, WAPost, The Guardian, and a handful of others).

should be considered ITN/R. One of the issues with scientific discovery reporting is that this usually isn't captured by mainstream media, and thus scientific areas rarely get much main page space to start; science topics are thus disproportionately undercovered relative to other topics that easily get broad coverage. If a scientific discover is noted by the media - using the metrics above - this is usually a good sign that it is sufficiently interesting to put on the front page and leading readers to it. Note that I do expect that all article quality, updates, and sourcing metrics on the topic article(s) are there.

A couple notes:

• I do want to avoid coverage that is primarily through popular websites or magazines that are scientifically oriented, like Phys.org or Popular Mechanics, which are going to cover these stories anyway. The sources I suggest are broad news sources that when they touch on science, they do try to cover it for the average Joe, making them good sources and indicators.
• I don't know if we need to necessarily codify the weight of the journal's impact factor, as really I've only seen mainstream news coverage of these types of reports primarily coming out of journals like Nature (which has one of the highest factors). That is, the mainstream's choice of news to cover is usually already implicitly incorporating the impact factor.

My choice of wording may not be perfect either, I'm only opening debate to see if there's legs on this. If there is, we can firm up and simply the language. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

One added note: I have no idea of the hard numbers of how many stories this adds per year to ITN/R, but my guess would be from past ITN/C nominations, we're looking at around 10-12 stories per year. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this somewhat similar to the 'earthquakes' section above, that these stories are not recurring and each will have to be judged on its merits and impact? I think we should just get more science stories nominated, they do seem a rare occurrence. Stephen 23:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. Earthquakes are rare, but if they are generally over a 4-5 magnitude they'll get covered in all major papers (though obviously the degree will be varied based on impact on human life). So we need a means to distill which quakes are important and thus why not a regular ITNR. On the other hand, when science news happens in major papers, it is generally rare representing the importance of the scientific discovery, at least when NYTimes is reporting it compared to Phys.org. Its not a matter of that so many could happen and we need to important ITN-post the important ones, just that they rarely get covered in mainstream in detail to start. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Most fundamentally, such discoveries are not recurring events and therefore do not fall within the purview of ITN/R. But there are other problems too, particularly around the vagueness of the criteria, which would likely provoke endless arguments.

What are "general-interest mainstream newspapers/news networks"? There are surely a lot more than "a handful" of them in the world (there are, after all, almost 200 countries). I am sure there will be lots of stories covered by at least three of these many outlets.

Do these criteria cover social sciences e.g. economic, sociology, criminology, political science? What if the discovery is disputed or other scientists express strong doubts? How can we neutrally capture this in a short blurb?

Ultimately I think that reason we don't post a lot of science news on ITN is that we correctly consider that neither us nor the media is very good at assessing the reliability and significance of supposed scientific breakthroughs. We have seen this a number of times at ITN, which stories have been posted and then editors with greater scientific knowledge have brought to our attention matters that call into question whether the story ought to have been posted. So I am not convinced that we should seek to feature more science news - not because it isn't important, but because we don't have the ability to reliably determine when it is important. Neljack (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Neljack; not recurring events. If such an event gets the coverage listed as the proposed criteria, it would likely be posted anyway, so I see little point in writing it down. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2016 (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.

Proposal to remove all political/economic summits from ITNR

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.

---

Proposed: All political and economic summits are removed from ITNR with future nominations based on their individual merits.

Rational: With rare exceptions the meetings currently listed as ITNR are just political junkets/photo-ops with little of substance resulting from them. In the event something significant actually does emerge from a summit it can be handled on a case by case basis as with any other non-ITNR nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

• Oppose I don't see a clear rationale here. For instance, we have discussed individual summits such as BRICS and determined them not ITNR material. There are currently five such summits listed at ITNR, and this proposal ought to have at least noted those, with a reason to delist each of them. As such I believe this to be a poor nomination. Last year's G7 article still gets 100s of hits per day, including thousands around the summit time itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. I'd also like to see these discussed individually instead of a blanket nomination. For example, it was highly covered when Russia was kicked out of the G8 (now 7) and these summits often get a great deal of attention in many countries. If there are reasons to not post specific summits, I'd like to know what they are before weighing in. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Article quality is a good proxy for significance. Conferences with little interest don't generate source material, which then doesn't generate impetus to write quality Wikipedia articles, which then don't generate an article worth posting to the main page. If we have an outstanding, well developed, and comprehensive article on such an event, I'm not otherwise certain why we'd want to block posting it. --Jayron32 02:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Just about everything in ITNR could subjectively be considered "political junkets/photo-ops" from a certain point of view. The summits are highly covered and of wide interest across the world. Mamyles (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2016 (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] Olympics

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 for future reference in 2018 when the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics will be held:

During the last 2014 Winter Olympics, a proposal on WP:ITN/C to post the results of the Olympic Men's ice hockey tournament on ITN ended up being rejected. The common objection was that we should not single out one particular event out of all the other Olympics sports, despite the fact that Olympic ice hockey is still currently listed here on WP:ITNR, or that it may be the "most watched" or "most important" event. Subsequently, a discussion to actually remove it from here ended in no consensus.

Monitoring WP:ITN/C during the recently completed 2016 Summer Olympics, there are signs that the wider consensus on WP:ITN/C could once again reject the posting of the Men's Olympic ice hockey in 2018:

• The posting of the 2016 Women's 100 metres and Men's 100 metres were rejected. The general opinion of those who opposed on WP/ITN/C basically repeated the same argument as in 2014 that one event should not be singled out even if it may be the "most watched" or "most important" event. The one who closed that discussion wrote, "This is why we have Ongoing and why the Olympics are listed".[1]
• Nominations for separate Olympic records was also rejected.[2][3][4] The common reason was, again, the link on the Ongoing line.
• A notice was then posted at the top of WP:ITN/C,[5] warning that such future nominations would likely be WP:SNOW rejected, referencing the previous failed nominations and the Ongoing link.
• Since the Ongoing links were frequently cited in the above points, it should be noted that it was not proposed until April 2014, two months after the Sochi Olympics. After a trial, Ongoing became permanent around May 2014 (per discussion).

Granted that consensus may change in two years, but precedent has been set both in 2014 and now in 2016 on WP:ITN/C not to single out one specific Olympic sport, whether it is Athletics and the 100-metre races, specific Olympic records, or ice hockey. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• As I explained in the discussion in 2014, the rationale for singling out the hockey tournament seems to be that it is the top level of international play, even more so than the world championship, as NHL players (from around the world) typically play, which isn't the case for the world championship- as well as greater news coverage(even within Olympic coverage). That may not be the case in 2018 due to a dispute over who should pay expenses. In the cases of the other events listed above, the same people (generally) participate in both they Olympic event and the world championships of the event. All that said, as pointed out by Zzyzx, we now have Ongoing which we didn't have for the Sochi games. I'm wondering if we should wait until close to 2018 to decide(maybe when a decision is made by the NHL on making their players available or not). I'm neutral as of right now. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal I see no justification for singling this out. It may be the highest level of international competition, but that also true for sports ranging from sprinting to figure skating, swimming to basketball. In any case, the discussion last time made clear that there was no consensus to retain it and it is likely that doing so will lead to another big fight when the next Winter Olympics come around. Neljack (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily true for other sports, which have the same participants all the time whereas hockey does not(even for its world cup). As I indicated, that might not be true the next time, though. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. The entire Olympics there has not been a single post besides the open/close ceremonies. Especially compared to the latter, there are events receiving much larger audience and attention. For example, out of the two weeks in Rio, the 100m races were put specificaly in the middle weekend and could have been easily featured without having an overrepresentation in ITN. Nergaal (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support to end the bickering, but mostly don't care. There are a number of athletics contests at the summer games, but only two ice hockey championships. The mens hockey tournament is sort of the main event for the games. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support no one single sport event in the Olympics is more important than any other. It is, after all, the Olympics, Citius, Altius, Fortius, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. Ice hockey is a highly popular sport in many countries, and the Winter Olympics is its highest international competition. As noted above, many of the best players are forced to miss the World Championships as the two main regulatory bodies schedule their main competitions against each other (childish, but that's how it is), whereas everyone gets to play in the Olympics. The level of interest in the ice hockey final easily outstrips any other individual event at the Winter Olympics, and would certainly be sufficient to post the event if it was a stand-alone competition. There really isn't an equivalent situation with any other sport, so it's not opening any sort of floodgates. I think it's fine to keep posting this. Modest Genius ^talk 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal The Olympic Tournament has basically become the equivalent of the World Cup for hockey; which is why sui generis we need to post this separate. This does not set a precedent, and there is no slipery slope. This is merely the singular most important tournament for national teams in Hockey, and for that reason should be posted. --Jayron32 15:56, 20 October 2016 (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] UN Secretary-General

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.

---

Not to try to impact the current ITN/C about this, but I think that the election of the Secretary-General of the United Nations should be an ITNR alongside the current United Nations Security Council ITNR entry. While not necessarily having as much power as any of the members of the Council, the SG is the principle leader of the UN for all purposes and thus something that easily hits the news when it happens. As with other elections, the target should be the elected official rather than, say, a page about the election itself. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support the elected individual should be the target. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support the election and the individual should be in the blurb, I don't care which one is bold. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support w/the elected official being the target. The selection of this somewhat high-profile position is notable. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support I can't imagine us not posting such an election so long as a suitable quality article is available. --Jayron32 02:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed, I cannot see any situation where we wouldn't post this if there's a decent article. Modest Genius ^talk 15:10, 20 October 2016 (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] United States Presidential inauguration

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.

---

It looks like the U.S. election fell under the automatic inclusion rule but Inauguration of Donald Trump will be argued on its individual merits. Is this correct? - Brianhe (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That is correct. Stephen 23:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I hate to be a wet blanket but I expect this one to be contentious. The first Obama inauguration in 2009 was a shoe-in for ITN but the consensus in 2013 was "not to waste [the] effort" to include II because it was routine. However it was listed for George W. Bush in 2005 [6]. So, is precedent to have the first inauguration or not? Is Trump exceptional and interesting, or routine? Very political. Is there a productive place to get the ball rolling on this so we don't have a big to-do on inauguration day? - Brianhe (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There are rumors and vague reports of mass protests being planned. Some are anticipating violence. But until something substantive does happen I don't see any reason to begin worrying about ongoing. Right now it's just a routine transfer of executive power scheduled for January 20. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's cool. I actually was thinking of how to avoid any on-wiki kerfluffle. In any event I will mention this at WP Conservatism and WPUSA in case more input can be generated. - Brianhe (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest: whatever. All articles and stories are argued on merit, regardless of how many people you canvass to get involved. I fully expect the inauguration to be posted, regardless, so you don't need any more "input" here, other than the help of quality editors who can weed out the shite that no doubt will be plastered all over the article for the days preceding, during and after the event. Thanks so much! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Trump's inauguration should be posted, but there is a historical element in that Trump is the oldest first-term President(Reagan was a tad older for his second term). 331dot (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Canvass? What? - Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You said you're mentioning this at 2 wiki projects that would be favourable to the inauguration being posted. That's canvassing. Why would we need their input? Stephen

Wikipedia:Canvassing § Appropriate notification states "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at ... [t]he talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." I'm really upset that by-the-book appropriate notification is being mischaracterized this way. It gives the impression that ITN regulars are walling this off from people who don't know about the ITN process. If there's something I did contrary to written guidelines, point it out and I'll do my best to fix it. Otherwise, outside input and wider collaboration on Wikipedia is a core value, and if you just don't like it, wow. - Brianhe (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

After getting constructive input at my user talk page, have cross-posted identical invitations to participate in this discussion at the US Government and Hilary Clinton Wikiprojects. - Brianhe (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's great, but I can assure you that we won't conclude an ITNR discussion in time for the next presidential inauguration. ITNR discussions last several weeks, sometimes months, so you'll just have to wait it out! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to discuss here anyway. Brianhe asked for confirmation as to whether the inauguration is covered by ITNR. It is not, so would have to go through the usual ITN/C route. There is no proposal to add it. Discussion over. For the record, I would oppose posting a routine swearing-in on an already-elected official. If there are mass protests then that would be a different matter, and the case would rest upon the facts of the protests themselves, not them being on the same day as the inauguration. Modest Genius ^talk 17:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Add e-Sports: LoL & Dota2

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 subject is always controversial at ITN so I hope we can have a rational, argumentative discussion. In 2016, the Dota2 International was posted on ITN mostly because of the ridiculous purse size, over $20M. On the other hand, LoL, with only $5M, got rejected in large part for reasons along the lines of "I don't like eSports". That being said, very few seemed to pay any attention to the number of people following the event. This is partially because viewership numbers are not immediately available during the event like it is with other "classical" competitions. To put things in perspective, according to primary sources, the LoL finals received 32M unique viewers live in 2013, 27M in 2014, 36M in 2015, and 43M in 2016. These numbers are more than say the NBA finals receive usually. I remember nominating the LoL finals posted in 2014 but people wanted a separate article, while others opposed predicting that these events will not have staying power ("video games come and go"). The 2016 League of Legends World Championship got plenty of "I don't want it votes", and by the time the article got significant updates it was buried down at ITNC to the point nobody was paying attention to the nomination. That is even though it received major updates in the immediate days after the event, to the point that it could probably easily pass a GAN in the current state.

Barring any major crashes, should either of these two events be added to the ITNR? League of Legends World Championship and/or The International (Dota 2)? Nergaal (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical of putting events that don't pass ITNC into ITNR(leaving aside the merits of so-called "e-sports" in general). 331dot (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose they have struggled at ITNC, in particular through notability, so ITNR is an absolute no right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• I would support this idea myself in a year. I think it is slightly too early for these tournaments to be added to ITNR. What I am primarily interested in is seeing how the regular system will judge the various esports tournament that will be proposed for ITN in 2017. If The International makes it through again, I can see definitely see it becoming ITNR. If opinions of the LoL World Championship have even just slightly changed, I can see it get there as well. I'd also like to see how Evo 2017 will be received when it happens, as I am planning to do some good work on that myself. Just generally, let's work hard on these articles first and let's see how much growth these tournaments will see in the next year. For now, I oppose. ~Mable (chat) 14:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• I do tend to agree right now ITNR is not right, but I do think we need to discuss eSports as a legitimate sport at WT:ITN so that these events are not simply dismissed because some don't treat them as sporting events. There are still plenty of other potential aspects to be discussed once you start with the presumption they are world-level sporting tourneys (are they the top tourneys in their field, how big are they, the type of coverage they get -specialized vs general media sources, etc.) but the ITNR request is very much premature. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I am bothered as well by people posting "Oppose – not a sport" or something along those lines. They should be easy to disregard, but they are still unhelpful. When it comes to what esports events are, you may find that they have a large viewership (some tournaments exceeding viewing numbers of most ITNR sporting events) and a global interest. Any esports event that would be elligable for ITN gets players flying in from all over the world. Meanwhile, the specialized media attention is an issue. This may be a side effect of the global scale of esports. Professional gaming is only "mainstream" in South Korea, and even the biggest tournaments are unlikely to be mentioned in every-day newspapers. I'm not sure what to make of that when it comes to ITN. ~Mable (chat) 15:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    • They are high-profile competitions akin to Chess Olympiads. The reason I started this discussion is because every single time I saw such events posted they are immediately taken down by superficial opposes, which do tend to influence the final outcome even though technically they shouldn't. I hoped that at least some kind of "suggestions" or "instructions" could come out of this proposal. Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think these events are mature enough to warrant ITNC, let alone ITNR. I would advocate leaving it two or three years and see where it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
      • What kind of suggestions or instructions are you thinking of? One issue that is important is that the article has to be of high quality when you nominate it, as it seemed like the article on the LoL World Championship didn't make it through ITNC primarily because of its low quality at nomination time. This is good practice in general, really, but doesn't guarantee success, as I believe Capcom Cup 2016 showed. Other than that... I'm not sure what suggestions to give. I hope people like The Rambling Man don't oppose esports ITNCs simply on principle, but it is true that despite large numbers, esports doesn't make it on mainstream news channels. I don't even know if this will ever change, or if this is a reason for Wikipedia to ignore esports as well. Focus only on the biggest and most prestigious tournaments (which is probably just League, DotA, and possibly EVO), and we'll see, I guess... ~Mable (chat) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Unless/until these events have a track-record of passing ITN/C, I don't think we should be bypassing it via ITNR. The point in ITNR is to provide a fast-track process for items which are bound to pass once the article is of a suitable standard. These are clearly controversial and nominations would not be a foregone conclusion. If and when they have received sufficient support at ITN/C to be posted for 3-4 events in a row, then we can reconsider. Modest Genius ^talk 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Addition of leap second

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 propose to add the insertion of a leap second to ITNR. Per Leap_second#Insertion_of_leap_seconds this occurs from time to time. An extra leap second will be added this year on December 31 and in the following, while no leap seconds were added in 2013 and 2014. From 1973 to 1979 a leap second has been added in each year, while from 1999 to 2004, for example, none has been added at all, so it seems important to know when such an addition occurs (also because there are two dates when they are added, December 31 and June 31, according to our article). The proposed regular blurb could be: The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service adds a leap second to Coordinated Universal Time. Brandmeister^talk 09:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• It would be an interesting way to mention the New Years in the ITN. 27/44 years means about 2/3 years there is likely bee a leap sec. Nergaal (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• I would support this. Its infrequent enough but a interesting scientific fact. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the article will just be updated with a new date, and nothing else at all. Not particularly interesting, and because of its regularity, not particularly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2016 (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] Remove: Super Bowl

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.

---

It's clear there was some movement, albeit small, towards opposing the Super Bowl being on ITN/R. I'll summarize the main arguments as follows: the Super Bowl is a national interest story for a national sport that has little to no coverage or playtime outside of the United States; there is a large number of Western European/U.S. based national sports and events dominating the ITN/R listings; and in terms of newsworthiness this event has little importance. It does not have the same bent on national or global politics as do elections, disasters or governmental actions. Granted, some time ago this was considered a "low-controversy item". Given the fever-pitch tenor of the news media nowadays, however, as well as the general changes in consensus that have occurred at ITN/C, it seems fair to evaluate whether or not these events can still retain the sufficient newsworthiness to merit an automatic yearly posting. Incidentally, any consensus we reach from this decision could be assumed to apply to other postings of national sports that have equal or similar levels of influence in their respective countries.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Addressing two points:

• The event is broadcasted internationally (albeit far less than the Olympics) [7] and while it's not yet confirmed for this one, past SBs have brought 30-40M viewers in addition to the 100M+ in the US. I also see post-game coverage from the Guardian, the BBC, CBC, and others, so there's international coverage (far less volume compared to US papers, but still...)
• On the "same bent" argument, this would then be reason to remove all sporting news from ITNR, which is far too drastic.

As to the Western bias, that's one of those things we should try to fix, but going to the Polo nomination above: it requires people to identify events that are outside the Western sphere of influence and nominate them, to make sure our coverage of those events is generally of high quality shortly after the recurring event, and to show that the event does have significance in the region that it is in that might not be picked up by Western sources. Unfortunately, all those aspects are a function of the existence of the WP:BIAS that we need interested editors to find and promote these, such that when we evaluate here for ITNR we should try to ignore our Western-coverage bent to accept these. So I don't feel this is a proper argument to remove events as much as to encourage more events from broader areas to be included (like the polo one, though that clearly has some problems). --MASEM (t) 17:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This is one of the most-watched events in the US the entire year, and it is broadcast internationally, is usually top headline news, a subject of interest to many readers, and typically gets a decent article to post. Objections that are based on this being a US event are not valid or at least highly discouraged("Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.") If the objection is to sports in general, then we should be discussing that(though I would oppose that as well) Bias can and should be addressed by nominating more events that would merit inclusion, not removing events. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose I can muster Per WP:ITN/C: Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. And yet, it's become an international event with lots of viewing outside of the U.S. This is one of the biggest sporting events in the world. We're not removing it. The fact that this is even being considered by anybody is a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for the following reasons:

• The Superbowl is the headline event of a major sport (American football) with a large and international audience.
• This is the sole annual posting for the sport, one a year is an appropriate and proportional level of ITN coverage for this sport.
• The articles are of decent quality and a good showcase of the English Wikipedia's ability to create timely and informative articles on current events.
• Many people are coming to Wikipedia to view this article. Looking at the pageview stats for today, right now numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 are Superbowl related. Readers are coming to Wikipedia to read about this event so it is useful to our readers to link to this content from the main page.
• The Superbowl is widely covered in the news media, both in the US and internationally.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• We are posting Premier League and even La Liga, which have a high viewership but nowhere near the totals of NFL. Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• I similarly oppose to the suggestion of removing the Super Bowl, as it seems to me, as a foreigner, to be the largest-scale United States sporting event there is. Even people who do not follow sports will know about it, which is not something you could say of many other sporting events in ITN/R. Of course, this is for a large part because of the US' global cultural dominance, but even taking this into account, the event still a massive economic event "considered by some as an unofficial American national holiday." It is the most-watched annual sporting event worldwide, which is worth something, I'd say. Almost the entirety of its audience lives in North America, so it's not a "strong" oppose, but it's a pretty solid oppose nonetheless. ~Mable (chat) 20:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and I know why Walt is doing this, unlike, it appears, do any of the preceding commentators! Time to snow close, consensus re-assured, we can move on to next year's debate over whether it should be Superbowl 52 or Superbowl LII. I can't wait for Superbowl LIX! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I know what's really behind this proposal; I was part of that back and forth on ITN/C. It's important that all of us reaffirm in the strongest language possible why this is ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Well in that case Support instant removal this is a parochial game played by two parochial "franchises" in some random location in "America" (at the moment), it's an unknown sport, not like polo for instance. The fact that it was watched by hundreds of millions of people is simply a typo in the ratings, those people were actually watching The Apprentice (with Arnie). Honestly, I can't remember the last time I heard anything about this so-called "event", it's trivial and meaningless and nothing compared to two canoes full of snobs bob-bob-bobbing along the Thames in front of a load of snobs getting shitfaced. I'm burning my bra if this remains on ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Time for a WP:SNOW close? I think we're done here. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Addition: Major software security bugs/hacks

While WP does not do PSAs, large-scale cybersecurity issues, such as the previous Yahoo! data breaches, are generally highly covered by the news due to the number of users it affects. I would think that any cybersecurity problem - a bug, a hacker, etc. - that has a direct impact on an estimated "significant" number of people or accounts (and specifically towards priviate/secure info) should be an ITNR, as once the details are out and reported to the public, news media jump on this fast so the "in the news" coverage is met. The issue is "significant number" and for that, I would baseline it around 100 million people or accounts (Yahoo's were 500M and 1B respectively); that number puts it around 1-2% of the world's population as to not make the bug trivial by any means. (To get an idea how that compares, please see [8]; less than a few percent of known breaches/hacks would qualify, and the 100M number keeps us to an average of 2-3 stories of this nature a year but of course, this is unpredictable.) This would eliminate things like the Sony hack (which only affected the company) or the Wells Fargo breach (which only affected 5000ish ppl). --MASEM (t) 01:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Determining the 'significance' of a particular event is always going to be difficult and I can't see an ITN/R-set metric being useful here for evaluating future, currently unknown, events. The significance of a hack/bug will depend on many factors, including, but not necessarily limited to, number affected, types of data lost, and the extent to which the problem has been exploited. The status quo of ITN/C discussions seems preferable. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose adding this general category of events to ITNR; each such instance should be weighed on its own merits. I think this would set a poor precedent; adding every bank robbery where X dollars was stolen, every earthquake where X number of people live, etc. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose every such breach is different and therefore lumping them in a generic ITNR is precisely what we should not do. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The magnitude of these events is subjective, so needs discussion on ITN/C each time. It's hard to see how these events are any more 'recurring' than e.g. terrorist attacks or business mergers. This isn't what ITNR is for, which is regular and predictable events. Modest Genius ^talk 16:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Elections: clarification needed

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 looked at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Elections_and_Heads_of_State and I realized that it lacks any link to a detailed discussion. I am sure it was discussed though, can somebody link the appropriate archives? Specifically ones that say decorative positions like President of Germany should be covered by the rule. Nergaal (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was added in roughly its current form here in January 2010, with the edit summary "boldly adding heads of state as per discussion on ITN/C", so you could go find the ITNC discussion that was taking place around that time to see the discussion. I don't think you'll find "decorative positions" will be described explicitly, but the current ITNR wording adequately covers the German President being posted at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I forsee it getting very problematic if we have to assess, case by case, whether each country's method of choosing its new head-of-state is "acceptable" for ITN, or if their head-of-state is "important" enough. The current simple and uniform approach has a lot of merit, and we are not overburdened with these stories. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that is the very antithesis of ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  But in Germany's case, the president is both decorative, and elected by a small group of electors. There is no "widespread" election, and unlike say the papal ones, there are no stakes. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  That's not required by the ITNR criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The current ones that were IMO never clearly hashed out. I think I've said this before: is something wasn't clearly agreed at ITNR, ITNC discussions should be taked into consideration for clarifying "unclear" cases. Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

ref. Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes? No consensus to change the existing ITNR which, in this case, is valid and should be applied, and should continue to be applied a new consensus is achieved to modify or remove it entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• It would consume a lot of editor time if we had to evaluate the "stakes" of every republic's head-of-state election. If we have to have this conversation, so be it, but I will be firmly on the side of the status quo. Regardless, it is too late to affect the Germany item this time around. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Does the OP have any doubts about Wikipedia editors ability to produce a quality article about the German President every time it happens? If not, then I don't see what the problem is. We at Wikipedia are not the culture police, and it is not our job to tell Germany how important or not we think their head of state is based on our own criteria. That would be rather presumptuous of us. --Jayron32 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Polo?

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.

---

Could we please add polo tournaments?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s Please suggest a specific article so it can be discussed, e.g. World Polo Championship. Many thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s or even better, look: I found this... The Varsity Polo Match! It's a shoo-in! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A competition restricted to two elitist universities!? That will never be posted. Stephen 11:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That one is more outrageous than elitist to be honest--lots of Pimm's! I'm working right now but will make suggestions later.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that polo tournaments have featured at ITN before? Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't. However, there is a long list of sports here--why not add polo?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Let's have a serious and mature discussion about it. If you have any other more niches sports you'd like to see at ITNR despite them never having been nominated at ITNC, it would be good to get them all out of the way sooner rather than later so we can return to discussing things in a less pointed fashion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We are very serious. I've created many articles about polo clubs and players. I do think covering polo in ITN is essential.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Jolly good, let's hear which article(s) then. I imagine you would absolutely need to start with the World Championship, right? After all that's the pinnacle of the game, so please, write out a proposal that we can discuss and get consensus on please. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• My initial thought is that polo is too niche a sport to get the news coverage needed for ITN (let alone ITNR), but I'm willing to be corrected. I'd like to see it pass ITNC first. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It has a huge international following in all corners of the world! I read Polo Times, but I'm sure we could find many sources for the main tournaments.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really, it's a very niche sport in very niche corners of the world, as exemplfied by the various "World" Championship articles we have. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• If we could show that a major polo event makes it through ITN/C uncontroversially for a few years, I'd be in support of adding it to ITN/R at that point. --Jayron32 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• The poor quality of the World Polo Championship article would be a problem for me. It's hard to imagine an event being on ITN/R when its overall summarising article is in such a poor state. A quick perusal of the articles for the various championships themselves, none of those articles would be suitable for main page posting. You could try an ITN/R push here, but I would strongly recommend instead putting your efforts behind getting the 2017 Championship through ITN/C and then looking to ITN/R. This would be helped immensely by putting together a good quality 2017 World Polo Championship article, and also improving World Polo Championship. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Open Polo Championship is a horror show too. Wow.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's probably partly as a result of the lack of interest in such a sport. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think what's needed is to show that there's a sufficiently large enough interest in the sport to merit an ITNR. Yes, it's played internationally and there's international competitions, but you don't see this televised broadly (in contrast, even the most contested ITNR event the Boat Race has been shown to have viewerships in the millions in addition to attendees). It is a very much a niche sport as identified, but that said, being proven wrong as to its viewership/interest would help. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A really good proxy for all of that would be to show that Wikipedia's articles on the subject are thorough, well referenced, and continue to be updated year after year at a high quality standard. If an article on a Polo competition could uncontroversially make it through ITN/C for several years, it would show that the subject has consensus as a sufficiently important event, AND that Wikipedia has a community of editors willing to keep the articles on that event at a high standard. That would show consensus for an ITN/R addition. --Jayron32 17:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the "did it make through ITNC the last X years?" as that is a process that takes forever and with the variable population of editors here, a lot of things can change over that period. I do think that we should look to previous articles of that recurring event to evaluate if they have been regularly updated in a timely manner after the event occurred, in addition to evaluating whether the event itself is something editors here feel is sufficiently significant to a global audience to include, taking into account all existing events within the same field to make sure we're not overrepresenting that field. The ITNC test is one of those that gets caught in a catch-22 loop, because with the event not listed at ITNR, sometimes it will be as less significant, and thus the entry rejected. (That said, if there does happen to be a case of a repeating ITNC event that gets consensus each time, certainly using that to justify ITNR is fine). I don't think that this applies to the polo situation (eg article quality is not there, and we're debating significance now), but we shouldn't use ITNC repeat postings as the only metric here. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume you all realise this is a joke nomination?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suspect we're all aware of the ITN/C background to this nomination. We have had a civil and productive discussion nonetheless. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion which has consumed a vast amount of bytes and editing time and produced nothing beyond the obvious I'm afraid. Time to close this down. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

When one acts in good faith, it highlights when others clearly are not. It's a good way to make such actions stand out by contrast. If everyone behaves badly, then we can't tell anyone apart. If we behave politely and give due credence to suggestions as though they were in good faith; if they were not, it would make the bad faith actions stand out starkly. If they were in good faith, then we are also proper to respond in kind. Either way, the proper response is to take the suggestion seriously and to offer constructive ways forwards. --Jayron32 21:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Like--LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I prefer WP:DNFTT in this instance. An editor with such vast experience is clearly making a point, especially after so many "votes" at ITNC against ITNR items based on notability. But hey, your mileage may vary. I'd prefer to not waste all this time coming to the inevitable conclusion which I requested right from the get-go. You're both saints. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like my constructive suggestions, no one is forcing you to spend time replying here. The list includes netball, and until I clicked on it, I did not know what it was. Surely we could add polo, which has a huge international following and clubs all around the world. I doubt netball does. The main problem seems to be that we need to improve the quality of the existing relevant articles in the first place, as User:LukeSurl highlighted earlier. I have asked for assistance with this, and I was also sent books by Horace Laffaye via WP:McFarland. That may take time, but There is no deadline.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Then please be constructive with your votes at ITNC, particularly with regard to ITNR items. That way you can be taken more seriously. Incidentally, polo won't make it onto ITNR, no article is even close in quality, no polo items have ever been nominated at ITNC.... Just to let you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We are working on it, as per Wikipedia is a work in progress. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well in the meantime I suggest this thread is closed. While there is no deadline, there's little point in nominating something for ITNR when it's years away from happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Suggestion to add: Jules Verne Trophy

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 currently related to an ITNC, but I believe that any win of the Jules Verne Trophy (given to the yatching crew that holds the fastest time for circumnavigating the globe) would be an appropriate ITNR. Since its creation the award has only changed hands less than dozen times, so we're talking about one story every 4-6 years , though there's clearly no regularity towards it. To be clear, this should only be ITN when the Musée national de la Marine in Paris affirms the record and awards the trophy, and not after a crew claims they broke the record (as the current ITNC stands) --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose how many times has this been posted in the past? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Within the period that ITN has existed, it has only be awarded twice (this current ITN is the 3rd). No, it wasn't nominated at the previous times, but with only 2 possible cases to evaluate, it's impossible tell if that was a pattern or not. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know what article you're looking at but the one I can see implies the race was run in 2017, 2016, 2015, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009 at the very least. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It's not a race, it's not run in any regular or annual basis. A team, at any time, says "We're going to try to get the trophy", they pay a fee so that the museum can prepare to track their time; they run their course (starting and ending at fixed points), and then the museum validates if their time broke the record. Several attempts have been made but not all led to the Trophy being awarded. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
        • • Got it. Maintain the oppose based on the fact the JV trophy article is a mess, and there seems little reason to give it a free pass at ITN regarding notability when we've never even had it nominated, let alone posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• An interesting trophy, but I think if we're going to post something like this it will be because it broke the around the world sailing record, rather than the award of the Jules Verne Trophy per se. As such it should be considered at ITN/C like any other world record, rather than listed on ITNR. The article is indeed a bit poor and we haven't said anything about popular or media attention. Modest Genius ^talk 17:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with ModestGenius; this award itself doesn't seem to garner much wide attention, even if circumnavigating the Earth does. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposed addtion: Election of the President of the European Council

Note: ITN/R current contains "European Union elections". I assume this refers to Elections to the European Parliament (the EU-wide vote by citizens), rather than already covering this.
Proposal: Add "election and re-election of the President of the European Council with the individual as the target" to Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Elections and Heads of State.
Recurrence: Every 2.5 years (barring special events)
Rationale:

• The position of President of the European Council has become a significant post of the EU, itself a highly significant international organisation. This post is probably the closest the EU comes to having a Head of "State".
• These events have been widely covered by the news media.
• With a 2.5 year term, these stories will not be unduly frequent.
• The re-election of Donald Tusk passed speedily through ITN/C with no objections on notability grounds. Future recurrences of this event are likely to be similar events.

• Indeed, the next iteration of the event will, due to term limits, be the election of a different individual, which is likely to result in more news coverage.
  

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support This proposal seems reasonable to me. My interpretation of the current ITN/R would include this position, but clarifying would help. Mamyles (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unlike other elections, this one does not seem to get its own article. Since this is a decision among a small group of people (27) I am reticent to have this as ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Mamyles; while I think the current ITNR listing applied in that case, clarifying it would be helpful. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed as kept] Proposed removal: The results of general elections in all states on the List of sovereign states

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.

---

Time to get some consensus, to remove this, modify it, or otherwise leave it. We currently have Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2017 at ITNC and one commentator is opposing this based on the fact that "Bulgaria has a smaller population than NJ, and we wouldn't even post the results of the NJ legislatorial election" and that the ITNR was added "by admins without consensus". This is specifically to deal with that one sub-bullet of the "Elections and Heads of State" section of ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep this is a global encyclopedia and just because the population of a country may be smaller than, say, New Jersey, that absolutely does not diminish the significance of the results of general elections in sovereign states. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Staple of ITN for as long as I've been around. Works well in practice. Highlights the global scope of the encyclopaedia. Encourages keeping the encyclopaedia up-to-date on politics in all countries. Removing from ITN/R would result in a lot of editor time and energy being spent discussing the relative importance of county X or Y that could be spent doing useful edits. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very good example of avoiding bias in favour of populous countries and against smaller ones. As LukeSurl notes, this works well in practice and avoids a lot of editor time being wasted discussing how populous a country needs to be before we consider their elections notable. Sub-national elections in populous places can be nominated, and if there is consensus they will be posted. Alternatively or additionally a proposal could be made to add them to ITN/R. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. This comes up almost every time a small country's election gets nominated, and the reasons for keeping this ITNR have not changed. As pointed out by Thryduulf, this helps get those smaller countries in the ITN box(while not suppressing larger ones). This also doesn't change that if an article on an election does not get a quality update, it will not be posted. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Mainly per above, not having this here would lead to less US/UK based stories on the front page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep – There is no overabundance of election results in ITN, possibly because many smaller elections don't get enough attention to be proposed here or their articles aren't of high enough quality to be posted. Whenever we have a high-quality article on an election from a smaller country, we should be ecstatic that we'll be able to bring readers' attention to the peaceful transfer of power of a country they may not know too much about. Every country is interconnected in some way, be it through trade or war, and the stability of these countries are important to everyone. Bulgaria, for instance, is in the European Union and lies right between its Union peers and Turkey. I'm sure even more inconspicuous sovereign states have global relevance as well. As for the "New Jersey" argument: as far as I know, the govorner of a US state doesn't have the same kind of power as a sovereign president or a parliament. It's just not the same thing. ~Mable (chat) 10:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Any record of events such as Wikipedia would be expected to detail the results of elections around the world. Democratic elections happen across the world and this global encyclopedia should record them. doktorb _words^deeds 11:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I wasn't aware that Medeis's singular vote in a singular nomination represented "consensus". If TRM's only objection is "I don't like the reason of Medeis's vote on this one election article" then I don't think that's a particularly strong justification for establishing policy. --Jayron32 16:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: this isn't about establishing policy. It has been claimed that the presence of this item on ITN/R does not represent consensus because of the way it was added to ITN/R. TRM has decided that it would be beneficial to determine whether this item does have consensus to be on ITN/R (and Medeis seemed uninclined to start the discussion). I agree that this is a good thing - particularly as he, I, and others have on more than one occasion said that if anyone disputes whether an item on ITN/R is notable enough to be posted then the correct place to discuss that is here not on the individual nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you Thryduulf, you hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure what Jayron is talking about, no-one ever considered Medeis' vote a "consensus" (where was that ever stated/suggested/implied??), but we need to test the community once and for all, and here it is, just to close the lid on further posturing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Consensus in all of life (including Wikipedia) also exists by consent; we've been posting election results (when article quality justifies it) for many many years without notable objection. Every time an election gets posted without objection to the notability of said election represents additional consensus for the practice. We don't need to discuss every thing all the time per WP:BURO, sometimes we just do things and after a while it becomes obvious it works. There's a billion different things that happen on Wikipedia on a regular basis that were never put to a vote; we don't need to vote on anything unless it becomes contentious. One person's idiosyncratic objection does not "contention" make. --Jayron32 23:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Indeed, and that was part of the point I was trying to make with this edit (I'm not convinced I managed it though). However Consensus can change and it doesn't hurt to occasionally verify whether it still holds or not. After all, "we've always done it this way" is rarely a good justification for anything. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep to remove any doubt this is the established consensus. Stephen 23:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep with the obvious cavaets that we expect that article quality is up to par, and that there can be very exceptional cases (to be discussed during the ITNC) where, say, the result of an election was completely unsurprising (say, an incumbant running with no opposition), making the election effectively moot. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed (included)] Suggestion: should we add the Women's Boat Race?

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.

---

Repeated discussion over the years has supported the inclusion of the Boat Race on WP:ITNR. However, 'The Boat Race' (the focus of previous discussions and what is included on the ITNR list) refers to only the main (men's) race. There is also a women's race and two reserve races. Here are the arguments as I see them:

• For the past couple of years, the Women's Boat Race has taken place on the same day in the same place as the Boat Race. If we include the Boat Race, it is not difficult to include also the Women's Boat Race in the blurb.
• Some feel as if the Women's Boat Race should be treated more importantly, even as an equal to the Boat Race.
• ITNSPORTS says that every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified.
• An argument against is that the women's race is nowhere near as prestigious or as important as the main event. I highly doubt it would get on ITNR on its own merits.

What should we do about this? To be clear, this is only a question about the Women's Boat Race. The Boat Race deserves a place on ITNR by long-established consensus, and the previous closer said this should not be discussed for a long time. Any off-topic comments focusing on the Boat Race instead of the Women's Boat Race should be dismissed. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As stated at the top of the Sports section of the ITNR page "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified.". It's unnecessary to specifically list both. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot, it seems pretty clear that the event, which is now "The Boat Races", has evolved to include the women's race on an equal footing, and the results of both races should be noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Only 'The Boat Race' is listed. 'The Boat Race' is a single race and is not the women's race. The last discussion has focused on 'The Boat Race', not even mentioning the women's race. I would take this as a good indicator of 'otherwise specified'. The entry should be made clearer to stop any confusion: we can either include 'The Women's Boat Race' as well, or change the entry to the more modern 'The Boat Races', which includes all four races. I would make the change myself, but am concerned about being reverted. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't they both occur on the same day? If they do, then the passage applies. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The event is referred to by the organisers as "The Boat Races". This encompasses both men's and women's races. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

331dot, if we read it as strictly as you suggest, then the passage applies to include the 'men's and women's events' of the 'The Boat Race'. 'The Boat Race' only has one event: I am sure you can see where I am coming from here: strict interpretation does not include the women's race.

TRM (and 331dot), in that case, would you support my changing the entry from 'The Boat Race' to 'The Boat Races'? Then there is absolutely no confusion. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is confusion now, as we've posted both before. I don't object, but I think common sense should apply. They both occur on the same day at the same location. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there is confusion: I don't feel as if the women's race is strictly included from the way it is worded. Since there is clear agreement that both races should be included, I have been bold and made the change. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed (kept)] Proposed removal: The Boat Race

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.

---

A few thoughts:

• Barely a regional competition, of no consequence beyond a small elite in the UK. (Note that WP:ITN defines its scope as items of "recent or current events of wide interest." Being a "unique" or "cultural" event isn't in the criteria.)
• Not even akin to college football in the US.
• Or as Horst-schlaemma puts it, "It doesn't make sense in the global context of en.wikipedia, it's irrelevant. Heck, it is even by British standards."

The Boat Race should be judged each year like most other nominations. Proposing removal after opposition to this year's event. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this can of worms needed to be reopened. This has survived at least two (I think) attempts to remove it, and during the last discussion I think it was stated that it really shouldn't be discussed for some time. I suggest that you or anyone else opposed to this review the previous discussion to learn the quite valid reasons that this event, with 250,000 live viewers and millions in the UK and elsewhere, is a top rowing event and culturally significant. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I call for this to be SNOW closed to avoid this degenerating into a argumentative back and forth. This will not gain consensus to be removed. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are you opposed to it being debated on its merits each year? Being removed from ITNR does not preclude it from being nominated or posted. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's going to pass every year, then why shouldn't it be on the list? That's the whole point of the list. It's always in the news, and almost(if not) always gets a good article update in order to feature it. What exactly is the problem? I'll never understand the fear some users have of actually learning about a proud cultural event that they might not be familiar with. Opposition to this always boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change is the obvious counterpoint to that argument. Moreover, if "views on TV" or "cultural impact" (which in this case is debatable) was in the criteria, we'd be posting a lot more material. (Would you support posting the annual Harvard-Yale American football game? What if there was an longstanding and televised boat race between two of India's longstanding universities?)

Please don't generalize opposition to this; mine is rooted in ITN's criteria. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Harvard-Yale does not have 250,000 live viewers and millions on TV, and is not between two ancient universities. Have you reviewed the reasons that this is on the list, given in the prior discussions? 331dot (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You have also cherry-picked ITN criteria. The purpose of ITN is the following:

• To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
• To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
• To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
• To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource

All of those apply to this. I also suggest that you review the Significance portion of the criteria more carefully. This got posted almost every year even before it was on the list. If that's the case, it should be on the list. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: This was added to the ITNR list in May of 2014. It was discussed for removal in January 2015, April 2015, and March 2016. Consensus can change, but there's no evidence of that. Can we take a break from this subject for a bit? 331dot (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep nothing has changed, this is becoming wearing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This is a Charleston we have dances before (and a race we have run before). Let us leave things be for a while doktorb _words^deeds
• Keep per all prior discussion (more specifically, recognized as the most-visible rowing event short of the Olympics), and consider making an ITNRPEREN to warn editors from keeping on opening the same can of worms to items that have clearly been discussed to be on ITNR for at least 5 years from when that discussion took place. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Begrudging keep until overtaken by something more exciting. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Weak remove: It does somewhat disturb me that the Boat Race gets a free pass every year, while a United States Supreme Court appointment (what, about once every 2-3 years and with a helluvalot more consequences) is poo-pooped. pbp 00:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to nominate US Supreme Court appointments(or, Supreme Court appointments in general to avoid bias) for inclusion in the ITNR list. I fear that would turn ITN into a domestic political news ticker- but no one can prevent you from suggesting it. 331dot (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Purplebackpack89 is referring to the fact that the most significant Supreme Court nomination in decades is struggling to get through ITNC (due opposition from people who support such events as the boat race and similar sporting events at ITNR). It's an impolitik thing to say, and supporting removal on that basis is a weak rationale to remove (in fairness the user did say "weak remove"). But that does not make the point invalid. It is incumbent on those who take a conservative approach to making changes at ITN and a pro-active approach to enforcing our aims and behavioral norms (specifically, in this instance, countering systemic bias), to try to behave in a consistent manner. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Every Supreme Court nomination(everywhere) is significant. Not every rowing event is as significant as this one(if people in general would take the time to learn about it). If there is a similar rowing event in another nation, or even a nonrowing event with similar attendance/viewership/significance that gets a good article, I would be happy to support it. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That's self contradictory. Your argument is that boat races can have different levels of significance (and you furthermore take the time to implore people to do their homework and consider the context), whereas when it comes to Supreme Court nominations your stance is that all are equally important everywhere but not to the extent to ever, under any circumstances, merit posting. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a danger of ITN being a rowing ticker. I do think there is a danger of ITN being a domestic political appointment ticker. Bias isn't just about nations, but about subject matter as well. I would add that I did say that I would be more open to a blurb about the end of the filibuster for nominations, but I don't think that has been brought up. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the latter point. It is no less important to consider subjects on their relative merits if they are (with good reason) not on ITNR, than it is to consider them on their relative merits when deciding whether they belong on ITNR. My reply to your previous response was worded the way it was because your approach seemed to imply otherwise.

Which does remind me to encourage people to scroll up to the top of this page... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough(as well). I do appreciate this conversation. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: Let me make a few points in response to some things you've said. You said "Every Supreme Court nomination(everywhere) is significant." Many countries a) are significantly smaller than the United States, b) have no Supreme Court at all, c) have Supreme Courts with a lot less power or prestige than the U.S. Supreme Court, or d) have more fluidity of their Supreme Courts than the United States does.

The other gripe I have with ITNR is the sheer volume of recurring sports events relative to other matters. There are so many now that we can have a recurring sporting event make it to ITN almost every time ITN is updated. I don't consider sports events to be particularly significant in the grand scheme of things. I know this is an old and fairly prestigious sporting event, but it's still a sporting event, and a not-that-globalized one at that. pbp 14:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, @331dot:, I have put my money where my mouth is and proposed United States Supreme Court nominations be ITNR. pbp 14:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Weak keep – it does strike me as one of the more borderline ITNRs out there, but then again the article is always well worked on and it does receive significant coverage. Viewership of the Boat Race is higher than some comparible items on ITN, despite those being held in more populous countries, being higher up that country's national sporting pecking order, or in some cases both. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• keep again for the same reasons it was kept the last time. Specifically this is unquestionably the most significant event in rowing, watched by millions around the world, broadcast live in significantly more countries than any other comparable event, has over 150 years of history, and there is track record the articles being in good shape and ready to post very quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't hold with this argument. I don't believe that rowing is a significant enough discipline that it's ITN every year. It doesn't have the profile of soccer or track or even basketball. pbp 14:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This race does, even more so than the world championships. That's why it is and should remain on the list. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment ready for snow close? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. The last review, which was very extensive, was closed with the comment that this should not be raised again for a very long time. Close it and let's avoid causing disruption for the sake of causing disruption. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed (not added)] Proposed addition: Nominations to the United States Supreme Court

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.

---

Why only the United States Supreme Court?

1. The US is a very large and influential country
2. A lot of countries have no Supreme Court at all
3. Other countries have Supreme Courts with a lot less power or prestige than the U.S. Supreme Court. (The United States Supreme Court is a co-equal to the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States).
4. Other countries have more fluidity of their Supreme Courts than the United States does. People are nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court once every 2-4 years.

pbp 14:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whilst the failure to post Gorsuch given the extenuating circumstances was a farce, in general I do not believe we should be posting Supreme Court nominations. The Gorsuch situation was exceptional due to all three of time taken to fill, means used to confirm, and political balance of Supreme Court. Take any of those elements away and I don't think there's a convincing reason to post a Supreme Court addition. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – If I'm not mistaken, the justices in the US Supreme court primarily deal with national issues, rather than international ones. Furthermore, there are eight of them, so I suppose you could argue they only have 1/8th of the president's power each? How many nominations actually result in the nominee getting appointed? I have difficulty accepting this addition to ITN/R. ~Mable (chat)

The new judge of a divided 4 to 4 court with 1 vacancy could determine the ideology of the judgments for decades. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is still in "crystal ball" and "so what" territory. And as we're clearly seeing this ITNC fail somewhat swiftly, and if this is a particularly notable appointment, then more run-of-the-mill appointments really should not get ITNR status. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose considering the strong opposition in the current case, claiming this should be an ITNR item is somewhat peculiar. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I appreciate the nominator backing up their words, but the reasons they give to put this on the ITNR list are reasons not to do so. This is a domestic, routine political matter. I am open to posting a blurb about the end of the filibuster for judicial nominees(a 200 year old tradition, I believe) but that's all. Bias is the only reason this would be posted(both ours and that of the media). 331dot (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment ready for snow close? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely; the ITN nomination of Gorsuch failing on notability grounds should be incontrovertible proof that this is by no means ready for ITN/R inclusion. Snow close this and be done with it.--WaltCip (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

[removed] Proposed removal: Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3)

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.

---

Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) is an annual trade fair for the video game industry. It was added to ITN/R in 2011 but has not been posted (or sometimes nominated) for the past four years at least:

• 2013: Nomination received opposition. It was not formally closed, but it seems not to have been posted, possibly partly based on article quality.
• 2014: Apparently not nominated [9].
• 2015: "consensus is clearly opposed"
• 2016: Apparently not nominated [10].

In December 2015 there was a general discussion about reviewing many current entries, including E3, resulted in "No consensus to do anything with this generalist approach to adding or removing items from ITNR." with advice to discus things individually in future. I haven't found any more recent discussion.

This is proposing the removal from ITN/R only and is not intended to prevent it being posted following consensus to do so following a nomination at WP:ITNC. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Remove and deal with it at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Remove; the lack of postings strongly suggests that this should be dealt with at ITNC. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Remove; deadwood.--WaltCip (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Remove; while E3 is an important event, ITN breaking news is a rarity (for example, if more than two brand new consoles are showcased, as was the 2013 situation, but hasn't happened since). --MASEM (t) 01:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• The issue with E3 is that its articles are consistently fairly poor, at least at nomination. These articles tend to boil down to lists of video games announced or shown. The E3 2016 article is looking quite alright, though, so I'm hopeful for the coming convention. The fact that there has been a consistent consensus against posting it whenever it is nominated, however, shows that this probably shouldn't be in ITN/R, though I do believe the event's impact should warrant it. Either way, I think judging it entirely on its own merit should be fine. ~Mable (chat) 10:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• In principle I think this should be on the list, but the fact that we're never posting it does make it superfluous. It's fine to remove and leave to ITN/C. We can add it back if/when it receives support there. Modest Genius ^talk 13:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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