Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 3

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

New ITNR proposals

I noticed that handball is not listed, although it's one of the most popular team sports. Currently, the report about the men's world championship is posted in the ITN template, and I'd like to start a discussion about the possible expanding of the list with the men's and women's handball championships which take place every odd year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Volleyball is another very popular and Olympic sport missing from the list. GreyHood Talk 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you GreyHood. We should talk about volleyball too. I remember the World Women's Championship last year, which get posted after long discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I was going to propose Handball and Volleyball for ITNR for quite a time already, but you beat me to that. Also, I'm going to propose some economy and technology stuff. Perhaps, it would be better to list all proposals and then start voting like in the discussions above. GreyHood Talk 23:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
To avoid confusion with the almost identical list further down. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So, here are some things that could be added to ITN. Feel free to expand this list:

Economy & Politics

Infrastructure

Airports

  • New Terminals at airports serving cities with a population of at least 5 million, or who are in the top 20 largest airports by passenger numbers.

Rail transport

  • New metro systems.
  • High-speed rail lines in new countries, or over 500km in length at or above 300 km/h.

Technology

Computing

  • CES
  • E3
  • Major new versions of Windows.
  • Major new versions of Android
  • Major new versions of iOS.
  • Major new games consoles.

Aviation

Air Shows
These three are the most high-profile airshows, as far as I know :
  • Paris Air Show (every odd year, seems to be the most famous airshow)
  • MAKS Airshow (every odd year, the full name is International Aviation and Space Salon - so it also includes space technology)
  • Farnborough Airshow (every even year)
New aircraft models
Should be posted either on the day of the first flight or after introduction into service, or on both dates (the two are usually separated by many years).
  • New civilian airliners with dozens of orders and hundreds of vehicles planned.
  • New fifth-generation fighters, possibly 4++ generation too.
  • Latest generation bombers.
  • Latest generation military helicopters.
  • World's largest/heaviest/fastest aircraft, other records too.

Automotive

Motor Shows
New cars
Should be posted on the start of the serial production, or after a record is established.
  • New innovative and mass-produced electrocars, hybrid cars etc.
  • Fastest/heaviest/largest vehicles, other records too.

Culture

Book and Game Fairs

Festivals

Awards

Sport

Bandy

Basketball

Football (soccer)

Handball

Mixed martial arts

Motorsport

Volleyball

Multi-sport events

Opening of the:

Discussion

Any other proposals? GreyHood Talk 23:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest the Hugo Awards. I nominated them earlier and they were dismissed as 'genre awards', which is certainly accurate, though I feel we could expand literary awards beyond the Nobel Prize for Literature and the Man Booker Prize.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support it. It is highly popular genre, perhaps even the most popular one. GreyHood Talk 15:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
How about the Struga Poetry Evenings as a prestigious international poetry festival? The current reccuring item for poetry is the Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom, which is awarded rarely and only to domestic poets.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, judjing by a number of articles in different languages and an international status, the Macedonian event is more significant than British one, so I add it to the list. GreyHood Talk 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the book fair in Cairo, but the Frankfurt Book Fair could also be.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added some for computing. I'd also like to see Glastonbury and SXSW on the list. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added SXSW but I'd like some more comments about Glastonbury. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added Glastonbury. Anyway, there likely would be some voting item-by-item or by groups of items, and Glastonbury certainly has a chance. GreyHood Talk 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Re: Glastonbury -- see this discussion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but if its clear we aren't posting enough culture it has a lot more of a chance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on festivals, events, or shows or the like, particularly commercial ones. However, if we are going to add some to ITNR, a few random ones I'd like to suggest would be Comicon, Essen Game fair, the Hugo Awards which I mentioned above, and Filmfare Awards.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Filmfare Awards, also because India is underrepresented. Not sure about Essen Game fair. GreyHood Talk 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Essen is the largest (most attended) trade fair for tabletop gaming in the world. It's attendance in recent years has topped 150,000, which is comparable to a major film festival. The largest similar event in the English speaking world is Gen Con, which is four times as small in attendance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, since currently it is just the list of proposals and there should be some more voting anyway, I add it to the relevant section. GreyHood Talk 18:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted Bandy World Championships to the list. Last time it was opposed mainly because of too much sporting items on ITN at the moment, and the poor quality of article. However, it is professional, IOC-recognised sport (demonstration sport during 2014 Winter Olympics), popular in Scandinavia and Russia and played throughout the Northern Hemisphere. GreyHood Talk 15:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna oppose Bandy. Being recognized by the IOC isn't insignificant but the IOC also recognizes Tug of War. More importantly, in Russia, one of the countries where the sport is played the most, I can easily name 10 distinct sports that are more popular (In fact, I will--Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball, Tennis, Biathlon, Boxing, Athletics, Figure Skating, Rhythmic Gymnastics, and Formula 1).--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlike Ireland or Australia or Canada which all have their national sports featured on ITNR, Russia is a large country successful in all kinds of sports (after the U.S., Russia is the second most successful country in sports, if measured by the all-time Olympic Games medal count). So, the fact that bandy doesn't make it into Russia's top 10 sports, means nothing in the larger context. GreyHood Talk 19:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
We don't post America's top ten sports, considering College Football and College Basketball have a snowball's chance in hell of making it. Capt. Colonel (edits) 20:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
On those grounds I think I have to oppose bandy. College Football is much more worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd have to oppose college football. A few banned formations does not make a new sport. I weakly support college basketball, men's handball and men's volleyball, and fully support the Euroleague for basketball, Premier League, La Liga and one more European soccer league, women's volleyball the Filmfare and Golden Globe Awards. I won't oppose the rest as I can't make a sound judgment on them. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I'd also support a non-American, non-European and non-Indian cultural item. Whatever that is –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There must be some kind of Manga convention and there is also the Harbin International Ice and Snow Sculpture Festival for example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic: There are some items that have consensus to be removed on earlier discussions at the top. Can someone not involved take a look at it. Thanks. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the Irish football as that looked to have a clear consensus for removal. I've left the others. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I oppose all of these. First of all, it's not news that, for example, the Edinburgh festival is going on in a particular year. ITN is not an events calendar. Secondly, it's absurd to have bandy, team handball and volleyball when their following as spectator sports among the readers of the English Wikipedia is infinitesimal compared to some of the events we don't have, like the above-mentioned NCAA football and basketball championships. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This should not be understood like if there is some item on ITNR, than it should necessarily be posted when the related event happens. There are also such things as nomination of the item and the sufficient update. So, if some festival is held, but nothing interesting happens there and no substantial updates are made, then it won't get posted. However, if something notable happens (the largest turnover for that event, for example) and the article is updated, than it could be posted without delay due to ITNR status. GreyHood Talk 00:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As for the sports part, it is for the greater good of English-speaking or any other readership to get a more global view of the world. GreyHood Talk 00:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Typical American bias. That's the strongest argument against college American sport, systemic bias. I support the inclusion of bandy, volleyball et al. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the inclusion of bandy manifestation of frigid European bias? What's next? Tug of war? Seriously more people are into kabaddi. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any idea how popular bandy is in the countries where it is supposedly popular? Like coverage depth in the media, TV ratings, etc.? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
@Mwalcoff, the idea would be to say "Oasis headline this years Glastonbury festival" or something along those lines. Otherwise while it happens every year, the Olympics happen every 4 years so they are arguably un-newsworthy too.
Additionally do you really oppose the posting of brand new metro systems? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
@Strange Passerby, we've shown on WT:ITN that there is no "American bias" in ITN. In the last 3 months the US was posted slightly less often than the EU. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
This movement of opposing U.S. items masquerading as world events and replacing them with European items masquerading as world events just changes the bias from U.S. to European. While I'd like an annual Asian sports item, I don't think the AFC Champions League fits the bill (more Malaysians watch the Premier League than their own local league), and the Japan Series though big is participated only by Japanese clubs (the Asia Series still has to take off) not to mention the Japan Series is an "American" sport of baseball.
BTW, the bandy world championship takes place annually. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Baseball is as big in Japan as it is in the US so I don't think we should exclude the Japan Series because it's an American sport. To my knowledge it's one of the most significant annual sporting events in all of Asia. However, in my experience in trying to edit some of its articles, it is difficult to find information in English detailing the matches.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Well unless anyone can read Japanese it'll be pretty hard finding refs (perhaps you can try the English edition of the Asahi Shimbun?). Note that the last time the Japan Series went up, it was a "package" deal with the World Series: when the latter is bumped off, so will the former. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't wanna talk about bandy, but handball and volleyball are surely more popular than many of the varieties of football which are recurring items.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
And since somebody mentioned that this makes European bias, even bandy is widely popular than college football.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
In Europe, I guess. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As testament to this, let's look for college football and bandy news articles on places far away from both North America and Europe: Australia. Here's one preview of last month's BCS championship game. A search for "bandy world championship" expectedly gets us zero results. Let's try another one: Singapore. Here's a news report about the final AP rankings, while a search for bandy world championship (no quotes) at Google News gives us again a big fat zero. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
World map showing the 27 members of the Federation of International Bandy.
If you think there is an European bias and American, you're completely wrong. I must use the map that shows where the bandy is played, and it's clearly that it's not only in Europe. On the other hand, the college football is far from this and I haven't heard about any international tournament, even about any national team in this sport. So please, don't mention bias of any kind.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
College football's parent sport, American football, has (believe it or not) an international governing body: the International Federation of American Football. Counting the number of shaded countries on the bandy map, there are 27 countries playing bandy. The IFAF with 57 member states headquartered in France, which has no bandy federation, has held the IFAF World Cup: Japan had been to the final in all three times.
You seem to get wrong, since the American football is listed as popular sport with the Super Bowl being recurrent topic. We talk about the college football as a unique sport which is not even a professional sport. Otherwise, the parent sport of bandy is the ice-hockey.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Like I said above, a few banned formations does not make a separate sport. As per our article on college football:

College football refers to American football played by teams of student athletes fielded by American universities, colleges, and military academies, or Canadian football played by teams of student athletes fielded by Canadian universities

Otherwise, NBA, college basketball and FIBA basketball are all distinct sports. Bandy and ice hockey are organized separately by two federations, apparently. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Correct. In that line, bandy is a unique sport, but the college football not. Since the bandy world championship is the highest rated tournament in the sport, the college football could not be considered as an important tournament in the American football, where the NFL is the highest rated tournament.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Who says the only important tournament is the highest-rated tournament? If that's the case we should've removed the UEFA Champions League a long time ago. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's another topic of discussion. The American football is not so popular as the association football or basketball, and that's why there should be distinguished any important tournament. The UEFA Champions league is also a club tournament. However, it's far from the popularity of the FIFA World Cup.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I doubt that bandy will get included, since it's still not popular as other sports, though its popularity has risen in the recent years. My comment was against the comparison with the college football, which as you mentioned above is not a different sport, but a variety in different league of the American football (you missed Canadian). However, let's end the discussion. I'm content with the discussion so far, but will more likely to skip on another topic. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, we may stuck in the discussion about the inclusion of bandy which attracts comments with inclusion of other sport events. I would sincerely appreciate to move on and discuss about the other topics, or to group the nominations above and start unique discussions of all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Note: I was going to reply but I got edit conflicted and I saw the reply above. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC))
Yeah we should quit talking about bandy due to WP:SNOW. I'd add some more sport events above. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest at the weekend we start an RFC to get further interest and vote on the items as part of that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Some points:

  • A lot of these proposals are things which we shouldn't be including on ITNR, because they're subjective. What exactly counts as a new airport terminal in a major world city? We'd get continual arguments over what is and isn't a world city, and whether sometime like Madrid's T4S counts as a new terminal. Similar arguments apply to 'High-speed rail lines in new regions, or exceptionally long and fast', 'New innovative and mass-produced electrocars, hybrid cars etc.' and 'New civilian airliners with dozens of orders and hundreds of vehicles planned'.
  • 'other records too' needs to specify exactly which records do and don't qualify, or leave it up to ITN/C (in which case it doesn't need to be on ITNR)
  • Without getting into a detailed vote for and against each individual item, that's an awful lot of book fairs. And on the Youth Olympics we agreed last time around that it's impossible to judge the prestige of the event after a single iteration. If we're holding off !voting I'll keep the rest of my comments til then.

Modest Genius talk 22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

    • I've updated both the airport terminals one and the high-speed rail one. The airports one is more controversial though - we can tighten it up further if needed as the main purpose should be to have something on the list. I agree about the book fairs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We have far too much sport on ITN as it is, and now we're talking about adding more? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely if we add more other content we won't have too much sport? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that the two(!) Gaelic games items were restored, and seeing the reasons fort support for them, I added the men's tournament for the UAAP Basketball Championship, the most popular spectator event in the Philippines which is probably a zillion times larger than Ireland. And other Southeast Asian spectator sports. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where are you seeing two Gaelic football events listed? I see the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship and no other. —David Levy 02:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Gaelic games. See WP:ITNR#Hurling. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thanks. I was unfamiliar with the term "Gaelic games" and mistook that for a reference to Gaelic football specifically. (As an indication of how little I follow sports, I'm an American with absolutely no knowledge of tonight's Super Bowl's outcome.) —David Levy 03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
(Next question not addressed to David Levy.) Does anyone outside Ireland (except for a handful in Australia) even know hurling exists? Please, don't give me the "NY GAA exists" answer. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: I've previously opposed some items in an earlier edit. I now support all, including bandy, with the just inclusion of hurling. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wolf Prize

Any thoughts on the inclusion of the Wolf Prizes? They're awarded every 1-3 years in 'six fields: Agriculture, Chemistry, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics, and an Arts prize that rotates between architecture, music, painting and sculpture' (taken from the article). They're generally the second most notable prizes in their fields (after the Nobels, Fields medal etc.) and we could do with better science coverage. A glance through the lists of previous winners shows that they're not only prestigious, but that we generally have decent articles on the recipients. Modest Genius talk 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody car to comment? This would be an easy way of upping our coverage of Agriculture, Chemistry, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics and Arts. Modest Genius talk 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I've not heard of them, I'm happy to accept your judgement that they are worthy of inclusion. Possibly this should be added to the section at the bottom? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
They're usually announced in February, so if they're actually going to be awarded this year we'll soon have an ITN/C test case. Modest Genius talk 17:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sod's law - it seems they happened while I was away for a week, and are now too old to go up. Doh. Modest Genius talk 19:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Further proposals

A new section for any further suggestions generated by the RFC itself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above about a "manga convention", I believe the Tokyo International Anime Fair is the closest you will get to that. I don't really know about its international significance, but considering the Prime Minister of Japan has commented on the economic problems of a possible boycott it could be important enough as a Asian event. --PlasmaTwa2 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've snuck that in. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll do some research later and find out if it really is the largest anime festival in the world. I'd also like to nominate WrestleMania for a look and see what others think. I nominated it a few years ago and it was denied on the basis that "it hasn't been added before, so why now". That aside, it is a major event in a billion dollar industry that sets attendance records in football stadiums and usually gives a $50 million+ boost to the host city's economy. If we want to have every UFC heavyweight title bout on, I think we should at least look at having one pro wrestling event a year. --PlasmaTwa2 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

From the computing section possibly new versions of Blackberry OS and Mac OS X would be worthy of inclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where can I put support all? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've added a section at the bottom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Football (soccer) domestic leagues

OK, the nominations for domestic football leagues is getting a bit disorganized, and I think it needs some discussion if we're going to move forward. The current situation makes it clear why we've had a rule not allowing domestic leagues in the past despite the obvious notability of the EPL and a few others. It just opens up a can of worms.

What are our criteria for adding leagues? League strength? Popularity? Do we want to have a geographical spread (perhaps the top league from each continent)? Do we want to have leagues from populous nations (say, every league from a country with x or more population)? Would we include a league if it were the most popular sport in the country? How many leagues do we want to include? Should we use interest among en.wiki readers as a criterion?

To me the one domestic league that is without question notable enough is the English Premier League. It is by several metrics the most popular football league the world and is followed worldwide; it is the strongest league in Europe according to UEFA coefficients, and it is of obvious interest among our readers. Not including it while we include all the top American and Australian sports, club Rugby events, and the GAA events is pretty ludicrous.

From there, we need to decide what the criteria are. The current list of leagues (admittedly, there're just nominations; obviously we've yet to decide which ones to add to ITNR) is a frankly weird collection of leagues.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Our current floor are the GAA events. If a league/sport event has a larger support base than that, it should be included w/o question. Other wise it's just nasty white guy bias. Pretty ludicrous the people here include GAA, a league followed by 4 million people at most and strongly reject Indonesia's football league. LOL –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's not forget that Gaelic football meets the informal criterion (btw, if these are criteria that we follow, they should be listed in our criteria) that we post the highest level championship of any 'major' sport. (Of course, this rule in practice is only applied to American and European sports here; that's just the reality of systemic bias). If we're going to add any football leagues in Asia, I would start with the AFC Champions League. Beyond that, I don't know.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I argued here before that the AFC Champions League receives little attention (check out the view stats in the archives, both for English and Korean Wikipedias), the national leagues do have a higher profile, but it's been changing since the Korean and Japanese clubs took it seriously. Before it was mostly dominated by Arab countries. Someone can argue that after the national league, more people actually care about the UEFA Champions League than the Asian one. Also, the tournaments among national teams do have a higher profile. Would you believe that more people viewed the 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup than the 2009–10 Heineken Cup, bots and overly bored people hitting F5 every half-second notwithstanding? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As for "highest level championship of any 'major' sport" criteria, this is the reinforcement of white guy bias. Events such as the GAA go up, while a similar league in the 4th most populous nation won't. Either we get rid of the "highest level championship of any 'major' sport" criteria, or remove fringe sports from ITNR to be fair with other leagues which have more massive support base. I even cringed at someone who said the Indonesian league had "limited interest" while saying bandy has a "fairly big interest base". LOL and WTF. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Darts

Seeing some of the sports proposals above such as handball and volleyball, and the continued inclusion of things like GAA, aswell as what non-sport items are being proposed aswell, I think Darts most definitely now qualifies as a major sport for ITN. And if any form of college college gets on, it's an absolutely indefensible exclusion MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I've previously opposed it before, the darts championship articles (well, there are 2 of them. Are we going to list both? If yes, separately?) are heavily viewed than some of the suggestions here. So it seems to be a good proposal. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you think that darts should be represented with a recurring item, feel free to add it and start discussion above. It's still not late.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think we're well past the point where new items should be added to the !vote above, and instead we should discuss them separately. This applies to the snooker items also added above. On-topic, did darts not get posted before? I certainly remember some ITN/C discussion. Modest Genius talk 19:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
For a world championship, it certainly is dominated by the Brits, and I thought darts is a universal... "sport." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Dominated by one Englishman in particular actually. The guy who won a record 15 consecutive world championships, apparently a feat which happens every world championship if you believe ITN as they screwed him over 2 years ago. And again this year, as he came 2nd in 'just another random awards show', the BBC Sports Personality Awards FFS! I didn't even bother this year, but as said, given the above indications, that's would be a disgrace. MickMacNee (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You know what's a disgrace? At least on sporting ITNR events, in order to counter the perceived "U.S. biaz" people are resorting to adding more European-centric items, such as bandy for the love of God, and non-U.S., non-European ITNR items are being degenerated as "unimportant" or having "limited interest" despite evidence. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I've opposed darts previously on the basis that however big in the UK it is, in the various countries I've lived in it's pretty much a pub sport. It may get 'wall to wall coverage' in the UK but the only such coverage I've seen is a few blokes playing darts on different walls. (hardyharhar). Seriously, I'd consider changing my view if it can be demonstrated that it is one of the most significant sporting events in the UK. However, being fairly ignorant of darts as a pro sport, I'm unaware of which darts events are most notable. It seems to be complicated by the split. Is either one of the current championships considered more notable? If not, what's the solution? Aside, I agree we shouldn't add it to the above list--it's too late. Personally I suggest we wait for the next championship and discuss it at ITN/C before adding it to ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't like to specify the criteria for inclusion in the list above, but we haven't established any deadline yet, which implies a possible inclusion of new items. The snooker was recently added and received traction until the page wasn't edited for days.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
One of the main reasons for the split in darts was that it was not being properly monetised in relation to it's significance and viewer demand. That is why the more commercial branch, the PDC, now gets all 72 games aired live on the premier subscription service, Sky, and is also syndicated to Holland, Germany and Australia. That's comparable to the coverage of any top sport in the UK that has succumbed to the lure of Sky. That being said, the more conservative branch, the BDO, still gets pretty much full daily coverage on the UK's national terrestrial broadcaster, the BBC, for free, and is therefore seen by a wider audience, albeit for lower prize pots. That's comparable to any other popular tournament sport broadcast on the BBC, such as Golf, Athletics, Tennis, Snooker etc. You cannot really compare Darts to a season based sport, but in an attempt to do so, less important season based sports in the UK which rank below the top sports like Football or Rugby, like the British Touring Car Championship, are shuffled off to minority channels like ITV 4, if they even get coverage at all. Darts in comparison would never face such an ignominuos fate in the UK. Both championships air around the same time of year, so the champions can be listed on ITN together in one blurb, so that's really not an issue. Neither championship is really the more notable in sporting terms, or rather, cannot be definitvely said to be (it would be like debating which of the top two world boxing associations was better). MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering new ITNR proposals

I have completed the close of each proposal, I'll add some general observations. Several proposals didn't gain consensus in large part because it was not clear enough which items they would cover, or inversely because the criteria were too arbitrary, this suggests they are better dealt with on a case by case basis. A lot of festivals/fairs were proposed but didn't gain consensus, there has been a suggestion somewhere to incorporate them not in ITN but in OTD, this may be worth proposing. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

We've been looking at the coverage on ITN, and we found that the Geographical balance of ITN was reasonable. However we found that the coverage of some topics was less than what you might expect, especially in Economy & Politics, Infrastructure and Technology. On that note we thought a major expansion of WP:ITNR was warranted, as its a major expansion making the consensus an RFC sounded like a good idea.

It should be fairly self explanatory but the voting is split into sections.

Please if you have any further suggestions can you add them to the further suggestions section, and we can look at those after we've considered this first set. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For those coming through here (perhaps via WP:CENT) who are unfamiliar with the workings of In The News, WP:ITNR is our list of recurring events which are considered important enough to post every time they occur. It is a short-cut which allows us to bypass the usual !voting on WP:ITN/C, and allow the event to be posted as soon as the relevant article is updated. Items which are not on the ITNR list can still be proposed on a case-by-case basis at WP:ITN/C, so they can still be included on a one-off basis. ITNR already has an extensive list of items, but it is heavily biased towards sports (perhaps because sporting events are always scheduled in advance); I would encourage participants to read the current list before !voting here. Modest Genius talk 18:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Economy & Politics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
All added as recurring items, with the caveat that the articles for the events should be created beforehand (and sufficiently developed), as example the World Economic Forum meeting of 2011 didn't have a specific article. Also, by World's fairs, are meant those recognized in this sense. Cenarium (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The following are suggested for addition.

Positions
  • Support all beyond elections this is a good selection of Economic and Political events with international interest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all, seems fair enough. StrPby (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all, since these events are the largest regular multinational events in the areas of politics and economy. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support G8, G20 and World's Fairs, but oppose WEF and APEC summits. The latter two are talking shops at which very little ever gets decided/agreed. Also, I'd categorise world's fairs along with other exhibitions, rather than as politics/economics. Modest Genius talk 22:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all. Worldwide events. -- œ™ 12:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all Major events that would usually get on ITN anyway. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all as per the wide media coverage and international importance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • support very reasonable stuff we usuall add any way but oppose world fairsThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all. These all seem to be newsworthy events. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support All Sensible. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all - These should have been on the list long ago! VJ (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infrastructure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition. Cenarium (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • New Terminals at airports serving cities with a population of at least 5 million, or who are in the top 20 largest airports by passenger numbers.
Positions
  • Support this seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Unsure that we really need to post every single new terminal in every big city. That's a lot of them, and they aren't always "in the news". StrPby (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. New terminals in the largest airports of the largest cities do not appear every day, and this type of infrastructure has especial international significance. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not something that needs enshrining in ITN/R. We can examine these on a case-by-case basis. Nightw 03:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nightw. --PlasmaTwa2 18:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, better handled on a case-by-case basis by WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 22:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose IMO, not often that big of a deal to warrant ITN always. Case-by-case basis sounds good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support Probably such reports could be discussed case by case, but it still needs a criterion for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These can be judged on a case-by-case basis. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose I oppose adding thing to ITN/R each should be case by case The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this dosen't seem like that big of a deal. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support if major airport, new largest terminal. Oppose for other. --Posted on 16:12 on 2 March in 2011 (UTC) by Highspeedrailguy 16:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rail transport

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition. Cenarium (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • New metro systems.
  • High-speed rail lines in new countries, or over 500km in length at or above 300 km/h.
Positions
  • Support all these seem good ways to get more coverage of rail infrastructure. Most rail infrastructure stories that we've already posted are in these categories. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support high-speed rail. Per airports above, unsure about new metro systems. Maybe if we limited it to only a nation's three biggest cities? StrPby (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Limiting it to a nations three biggest cities would just be bias towards small countries and away from large countries like the US, China and India. Additionally in lots of countries the three biggest cities already have metro systems so they wouldn't be posted under this criteria anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all per Eraserhead1. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These also should be examined case-by-case. I'm sure not many readers care whether London, Ontario gets a metro system. But putting "new metro systems" in ITN/R means that would get posted as long as there was that one editor who bothered to nominate and update it, regardless of reader interest, media attention, or any other factors we normally consider. Arbitrary cut-off figures, as well, are something that I'd strongly oppose putting in ITN/R. Nightw 03:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
A light-rail train system is different than a metro. Given the millions/billions of dollars involved in creating a metro, I think it would be a obvious candidate for ITN, however I think we should still judge those on their own basis when they open. --PlasmaTwa2 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah metro systems don't include light rail. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
For poorer countries light rail it is most expensive transport infrastructure that can be built (and often that's under a build-operate-transfer scheme, with the "builder" from a foreign country). This can be promoting rich nation bias. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Though actually as rich countries already have metro systems in many cities if we add this we are going to be posting a lot more stuff from countries like China and India where many cities are getting new metro systems as they are becoming richer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I can understand China and India though -- their governments are rich while the rest of the populace isn't. How about for other countries? While rich countries won't have news about this subject, they're pretty well represented elsewhere. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe Vietnam for example is getting a new metro in both Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi (and eventually high-speed rail as well between those cities). Lots of countries in the middle east also appear to be building metros and high speed rail lines. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support high-speed trains, especially if they are built in North America/Australia as they are the two areas in the Western World without. --PlasmaTwa2 18:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

@Nightw, you're complaining about arbitrary cut off figures here, but are asking for them specifically just below in the Aircraft section. If you're going to oppose two sections here for opposite reasons its quite difficult to take anything from your opposes other than you just opposing for the sake of opposing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I opposed because the proposal was undefined, as I said. I didn't ask for arbitrary cut-off figures, I asked simply for the proposal to be clear-cut so that editors can know exactly what they're supporting. And I remain opposed there, because, as you've said, it uses arbitrary cut-offs and things need to be examined case-by-case. Nightw 13:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose both, again better handled case-by-case on ITN/C. Not every new metro system will be notable, and ITN/C consensus has been against some new high-speed lines in the past (usually because they were in effect extensions of existing ones, or ran between cities which were not internationally well known). Modest Genius talk 22:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Similar to the airports proposal. Case-by-case basis, please; rail lines aren't always ITN-worthy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support as per the terminals at the airports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These can be judged on a case-by-case basis. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all on a automatic basis. They need to be looked at indvidualy to see if they get lots of press coverage or not. Guerillero | My Talk 17:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply are not always notable (Seem the 7.5 mile METRORail) which would qualify under this. High speed rail again is case by case. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I would presume we'd use the same criteria as for List of metro systems and that looks to be light-rail and isn't included there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support completely new metro systems, or 4+ new lines, support new high-speed rail, oppose new stations or rolling stock. --Posted on 16:11 on 2 March in 2011 (UTC) by Highspeedrailguy 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
CES and E3 added, with the recommendation that specific articles should be created for each CES edition. No consensus for adding the rest. Cenarium (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Computing

  • CES
  • E3
  • Major new versions of Windows.
  • Major new versions of Android.
  • Major new versions of iOS.
  • Major new games consoles.
Positions
  • Support all these shows are particularly notable, and OS releases are generally pretty important. Good to cover smartphone OS's too - there are more mobile phones sold than computers by a long way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but if we have Apple's IOS and Android's OS we should BlackBerry OS too. WhiteKongMan (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Blackberry isn't in the top 3 OS's on current sales and generally Blackberry highlights their phones not the OS. Additionally on the PC side Mac OS X isn't included, the aim was to stick with the biggest ones, maybe Blackberry OS and Mac OS X would be worthy of including later, but in the meantime they can be suggested for posting on WP:ITNC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. But if BB isn't included because they highlight their phones and not their OS, maybe we should drop Android too (Apple's OS gets much more attention than Android also). WhiteKongMan (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I see your point, but Android is the #1 selling smartphone OS on the market, and in tech circles its versions are discussed reasonably often - additionally this gives us 1 story from each of Microsoft, Apple and Google. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the trade fairs, oppose the corporate products, which already get enough free publicity without us giving them millions more eyeballs. Courcelles 17:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the trade fairs, Windows and Apple. Unsure about the rest. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all; the products per Courcelles and WP:NOT, the fairs because their articles don't seem to indicate much notability, especially not enough to ensure recurrent no-questions-asked posting every time they happen. Have we ever posted these items? Nightw 03:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
People don't nominate stuff that they don't think will be posted. That's one of the main reasons ITN is bias towards certain events and not others - which isn't really particularly good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support E3 and CES, oppose the releases, which are better left to ITN/C. 'Major' is undefined anyway, and it seems bizarre to exclude any software that isn't written by Microsoft, Apple or Google. Besides, three years ago no-one had heard of Android, whose to say the technology world won't have moved in completely expected directions in three year's time? Modest Genius talk 22:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support E3 and CES oppose the rest. Apple gets enough publicity as it is. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all except the new games consoles, which should be discussed case by case.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These can be judged on a case-by-case basis. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We are not free advertising, I cant even imagine the blurb for some of things. Take some of these on case by case . Modest Genius has made a good point about editions of just current top companies and in an area has fast moving as tech having the current tops is silly. Also may Violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING/WP:NOTPROMOTION. These conventions show clear American centric bias. Why was Sony not named? Hell We did not post the ipad at announcment. [1] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Given the iPad looks to have been one of the most interesting tech products of 2010 (along with Android) that's opened up a brand new market that didn't exist before I don't think that's a shining example of ITNC picking the right answer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      • WP:NOTADVERTISING/WP:NOTPROMOTION that essentially the answer here We are not supposed to promote a product simply becuase it is announced or goes on sale. We dont need to post Apple's latest news every time Steve Job's latest toy. It fundamental policy discussion that violates WP:NPOV. IF there is a product that is so Fucking awesomely revolutionary than it will get posted the latest ipod model is not The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
        • WP:NOTPROMOTION doesn't mean we have to take the line of the Socialist Worker towards commercial products. We could have reported the launch of the iPad in a manner which was neutral - the BBC manages to report this kind of stuff. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
And every time the BBC does so it gets accused of giving Apple free advertising. The Guardian is notorious for this - in 2010 it ran more stories on Apple than the UK general election. Just because other media report on it doesn't mean we should too. The ipad did turn out to be a bigger thing than most people thought - at the time most commentators were dismissing it as a gimmick with no obvious use. Modest Genius talk 23:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Its essentially an advertisement of product that just came out/announced for no other reason than its the latest Apple/Microsoft/Google product. Thats not a neutral view to take as it favors three silicone valley companies for no other reason than they have a press conference to announce it. Not because there are unique or important merits to the product The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
In my view we're way to paranoid about WP:NOTPROMOTION. It's a valid concern but ITN could hardly be accused of running more stories on Apple than on elections. We could have covered the iPad announcement and remained neutral. I'm sure a lot of readers were interested in Wikipedia's Ipad article at the time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
When was the last time we posted any Apple story at all? And I did a Google search on the claim that the BBC gets accused of giving Apple free advertising and couldn't find a single hit. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all on a automatic basis. They need to be looked at indvidualy to see if they get lots of press coverage or not. Guerillero | My Talk 17:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Look at them individually. A new Windows is hardly major world news. Reywas92Talk 21:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd have thought that the operating system that billions of people are going to use at work is kind of a big deal, but YMMV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support E3 and CES, these are major trade shows; oppose the rest, it seems too much like advertising VJ (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aviation - Air shows

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition. Cenarium (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Paris Air Show (every odd year, seems to be the most famous airshow)
  • MAKS Airshow (every odd year, the full name is International Aviation and Space Salon - so it also includes space technology)
  • Farnborough Airshow (every even year)
Positions
  • Oppose. I honestly doubt any of these would be "in the news" unless there was a big announcement about some new plane or other, which has been proposed separately below. StrPby (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. These are largest international events in the aircraft industry. Note that each one is expected to have less than one story per year. When air shows are posted on ITN, big announcements about new aircraft models may be incorporated into the blurbs. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Greyhood. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What Greyhood says is fine, but what if nothing major is announced? What if it's just another air show? No, examine case-by-case. We don't need to post these every time they're on. As someone said earlier, "ITN isn't an events calendar". Nightw 03:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all - the airshows themselves are not very notable. Any major new announcements or models may well be, but those should be handled case-by-case by ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 22:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all Case-by-case basis, if anything noteworthy occurs at one show. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN is not an events calendar. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all on a automatic basis. They need to be looked at indvidualy to see if they get lots of press coverage or not. Guerillero | My Talk 17:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all same rational as Greyhood & my support for E3\CES above VJ (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aviation - new Aircraft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition, except for new manned spacecrafts (including space stations), suggested below and which seems inherently ITN-worthy. As for records, this needs to be made more precise, there's no emerging consensus here, I suggest to list in a future proposal the specific records that should be broken for eligibility as recurring item and seek consensus on each record (this could be made for records other than in spacecraft). Other points are best treated case by case. Cenarium (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • New civilian airliners with dozens of orders (>20) and hundreds of vehicles planned (>200).
  • New fifth-generation fighters, 4++ generation too.
  • Latest generation bombers.
  • Latest generation military helicopters.
  • World's largest/heaviest/fastest aircraft.
Positions
  • Support biggest+new=in the news. StrPby (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all. New aircraft models usually have rather well-developed articles, and it will be good for ITN to have more stories of this type. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is all quite vague. Can someone please rephrase what is actually being proposed? This is ITN/R, so it needs to be quite plain. Avoid childish weasel words like "dozens" and "hundreds". Are "4++ generations" going to be listed or not? As it stands, oppose all. Nightw 03:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Greyhood, dozens and hundreds are hardly weasel words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note I've removed "possibly" from the fighters line, and specified the numbers for airliners. GreyHood Talk 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the records, oppose all the others. We don't need to post every time any country builds a new military aircraft, this isn't Jane's Defence Weekly or Jane's All the World's Aircraft, nor should we be posting every aircraft which meets some arbitrary number of vehicles planned(!). Leave those topics to ITN/C, case-by-case. Modest Genius talk 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support records and spacecraft with other aircraft on a case-by-case basis. If it's gotten tons of coverage (e.g., Boeing 787 or China's J-20) then sure, but not all new airplanes are noteworthy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all Most of the proposals are ITN noteworthy, and I wonder what else we should include instead technological achievements.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Records oppose everything else. This stuff should be case by case. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way, awy to broad to be automatically accepted for the main page. Reywas92Talk 21:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose All I'd consider case by case for breaking speed records, but the only big deal unveiling in the last five years, IMO, was that of the Chinese stealth bomber. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Automotive - Motor shows

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition. Cenarium (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Support all. Per air shows reasoning. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all, see the air shows section for the reasoning. Nightw 03:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all per Greyhood. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all, again the same as my airshows reasoning. Modest Genius talk 23:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all unless something noteworthy happens at one (case-by-case basis). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN is not an events calendar. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all per Mwalcoff. This is not a calender --Guerillero | My Talk 17:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all on a automatic basis. They need to be looked at individually to see if they get lots of press coverage or not. Guerillero | My Talk 17:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you can't vote twice for the same proposal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure it's an mistake. WP:AGF and all that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this !vote was intended for the section below? Modest Genius talk 13:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all. Per air\Tech shows reasoning VJ (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Automative - new vehicles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition. Cenarium (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • New innovative and mass-produced electrocars, hybrid cars etc.
  • Fastest/heaviest/largest vehicles.
Positions
  • Support all. Per new aircraft reasoning. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. Vague proposal, open to interpretation / opinion. Nightw 03:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support fastest/heaviest/largest vehicles, Oppose new innovative and mass-produced electrocars, hybrid cars as there is a lot of room for interpretation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support speed records, oppose others. The first item is very poorly defined and better left to ITN/C, whilst the other records are unlikely to be of wide interest. Modest Genius talk 23:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support records but we don't need to give any more PR to the Chevy Volt or anything. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all per my reasoning about the new aircrafts.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These can be judged on a case-by-case basis. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all on a automatic basis. They need to be looked at indvidualy to see if they get lots of press coverage or not. Guerillero | My Talk 17:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all Case by case, Remember this is not whether something should be featured but does it need to be featured every time? Here nothing require posting every time The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose All Not news. Then again, my standards for what is newsworthy are very high. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Culture

Book and Game Fairs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition. Cenarium (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Strong oppose all. These are run-of-the-mill events, all that can every be said about them is that they happen. There's no actual news in any of them, posting these would just be an events ticker. Modest Genius talk 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There isn't anything consistently notable about these events to warrant a guaranteed mention every time they just happen. Nightw 06:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all Not really major on the ITN scale. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for the first two Apparently more culture topics are needed, and the first two really meet the criteria for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Kiril (and myself in the section below) - we do need to post more cultural stuff. Also support the Tokyo anime one as Japan isn't particularly heavily posted. 'Neutral on the others. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN is not an events calendar. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all on a automatic basis. They need to be looked at indvidualy to see if they get lots of press coverage or not. Guerillero | My Talk 17:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Festivals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition. Cenarium (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Support all as notable festivals. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all, especially the first one, which is the most notable international event in poetry, according to my knowledge. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. There are thousands of festivals held every year across the world. Oktoberfest, ... Carnival, ... Chinese New Year, ... Calgary Stampede, ... As someone said earlier, "ITN is not an events calendar". Hand-picking a smattering of events to post every time they pop up will be like opening the flood gates, and that's exactly what ITN will become. If a famous festival is particularly notable one year, then we can consider it then. Nightw 03:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all, for the same reason and the book fairs etc above. Modest Genius talk 23:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
@Modest Genius, if you oppose these how are we ever going to post any culture at all? How are we going to cover more topics, and not just cover elections violence and sport? And for something like Glastonbury there is news, there's the band who headlines the event. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
We do post cultural events (eg the Oscars, Booker prize), it's just that most suitable stories here are not regularly scheduled and thus difficult to include on ITNR. Festivals, fairs etc. happen regularly, but beyond saying 'X festival is held, with Y performing their work Z' there isn't much to it. How on earth will we possibly be able to get good article updates on that basis? Glastonbury is a possible exception, since acres of coverage is given every year, but I'm wary of enshrining a single British festival on ITNR when there are so many others around the world. Modest Genius talk 18:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Good argument, I may reconsider my !vote. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
By nominating the event at ITN/C. If it's particularly notable that year (record numbers, milestone, etc) then it should have no problem. Nightw 08:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
How is that going to lead to balanced coverage? We could have posted Glastonbury back in 2009, Edinburgh last year and SXSW last year and Struga back in 2008 but that even give last years record only amounts to two culture stories a year.
In soccer there looks to be a pretty strong consensus below to add a further 4 soccer tournaments, and unlike culture, it receives significant coverage already, whereas you're arguing 2 culture stories a year is enough, even though if there is no culture in ITNR noone will nominate it as its unlikely they'll think its important enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all; case-by-case basis, if something particularly noteworthy occurs at one or they get an abnormal amount of media coverage. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This part of discussion is moved to the section on poetry below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support the Struga Poetry Evenings as one of the greatest poetry festivals, which every year features the greatest poets in the world. The Golden Wreath, which is assigned every year, is probably the most prestigious award in poetry. It is dubious to consider it only as a festival due to the importance of the award.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Indeed, we should have started a separate voting section for the Struga Poetry Evenings, since it is not only a festival, but also the most prestigious award in poetry, at least among the awards covered on Wikipedia. It has an international significance, unlike the Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom, which is the only poetry award currently on ITN. I hope the people who have voted here don't mind if we move the Struga event to a new section, with the two votes directly mentioning it (mine and Kiril's one)? GreyHood Talk 20:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN is not an events calendar. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all on a automatic basis. They need to be looked at indvidualy to see if they get lots of press coverage or not. Guerillero | My Talk 17:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Edinburgh & Glastonbury. - The get acres of news coverage every year by other organisations; I don't see why they should be excluded from here VJ (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Added with the provision that focus should be made on the awarded poet, and therefore that his/her article has to exist and be updated. Cenarium (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Support, as it is the most notable international event in poetry, according to my knowledge. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the Struga Poetry Evenings as one of the greatest poetry festivals, which every year features the greatest poets in the world. The Golden Wreath, which is assigned every year, is probably the most prestigious award in poetry. It is dubious to consider it only as a festival due to the importance of the award.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Indeed, we should have started a separate voting section for the Struga Poetry Evenings, since it is not only a festival, but also the most prestigious award in poetry, at least among the awards covered on Wikipedia. It has an international significance, unlike the Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom, which is the only poetry award currently on ITN. I hope the people who have voted here don't mind if we move the Struga event to a new section, with the two votes directly mentioning it (mine and Kiril's one)? GreyHood Talk 20:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
So you've split out the support votes but left the opposes in the section above? Seems like gaming the !vote to me. There are plenty of poetry awards, and I've seen nothing to suggest that this is particularly notable amongst them. Maintaining my oppose. Modest Genius talk 18:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
To me this looks like a comment with no arguments. Since you mention the list of the poetry awards, this is listed in the section of major international awards. And for further information, among the winners of the Golden Wreath Award are many of the most accomplished poets, such as Andrey Voznesensky, Pablo Neruda, W. H. Auden, Léopold Sédar Senghor, Eugenio Montale, Joseph Brodsky and Mahmoud Darwish.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just copied all the votes that directly mentioned the Struga event. If there would be oppose votes doing so, I'd copy them as well. Struga Poetry Evenings clearly deserve a separate section as an award, and it was originally my mistake that I've placed the event among other festivals, and then Eraserhead1 copied this to voting. Of course, everyone is free to reinstate his/her oppose vote on this separate voting for the Struga event. GreyHood Talk 02:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As for the statement that there are many other poetry awards, your own link shows that among the major international awards (all-form Nobel Prize in Literature excluded), Struga Poetry Evenings have the longest history, the most impressive list of winners and the largest number of articles in other languages (Rhysling Award has a bit more, but it is for science-fiction poetry only). And if we cover several movie awards and multiple sports awards, there is simply no reason why we shouldn't cover the top international events in poetry, especially when we already have on ITNR such one-nation awards as the Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom. GreyHood Talk 02:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Absolutely not major world news. Reywas92Talk 21:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Would absolutely be major world news in poetry. The winners mentioned on the page include Pablo Neruda (Nobel Prize in Literature 1975 and "the greatest poet of the 20th century in any language" - Gabriel García Márquez), Eugenio Montale (Nobel Prize in Literature 1975), Joseph Brodsky (Nobel Prize in Literature 1987) and Seamus Heaney (Nobel Prize in Literature 1995). Poetry is not really represented at all and they clearly don't give this to just about anyone. --candle•wicke 02:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support As prestigious as the oscars with a lot less pop-culture bulls**t. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Awards

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hugo and Filmfare Awards Added. Concerning the Hugo Awards, the blurb should highlight the Best Novel award. Concerning the Filmfare Awards, their presentation should highlight the best movie award. No consensus (in either way) for the Golden Globe Awards. Cenarium (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Support all as it expands the coverage of awards to more countries and categories. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all per Eraserhead1. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Golden Globes as there has alreayd been consensus to remove it from itn. They are an award that are secondary to the Oscars. --PlasmaTwa2 22:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. We've already got 5 or 6 film events per year on ITN/R. We don't need another lot. Nightw 03:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The FilmFare awards are for Bollywood (and India is hardly over-posted), and the Hugo awards are for comedy. So those two aren't "just" more film awards. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Err, the Hugo awards are for science fiction Modest Genius talk 23:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sport

Bandy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition. Cenarium (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Bandy World Championships
Positions
  • Support, world championship of an Olympic sport that has fairly big interest base. StrPby (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. International sport played in many countries. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support, but only because we already have Gaelic football and hurling. The arguments below have convinced me to change to weak oppose. Modest Genius talk 23:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support seems of wide enough interest. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It's a sport with a fast-growing popularity, which every year receives wider media coverage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Super-duper extreme 100% strong oppose with all my heart and soul. Bandy? Are you kidding me? This is not even remotely one iota to close to being a major spectator sport in any country with strong English Wikipedia readership. The question for what makes a sporting event newsworthy is not how many countries it's played in. For one, this shows a bias in favor of Europe, which is divided into itty bitty little countries, as opposed to the U.S., which is one big country. But anyway, korfball is played in many countries. So is croquet. I don't think those would make ITN items. The only thing that makes a sport "important" is how many people in the universe in question care about it, as well as stuff like TV ratings, attendance, the amount of money involved, etc. The fact that we would even be thinking about bandy or team handball while we continue to exclude items with orders of magnitude more reader interest, such as the NCAA football and basketball championships, is reflective of an arrogant, elitist attitude of "fuck the reader." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's more important stuff not posted to ITN, and Bandy does not have signficant popularity in any country.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to add some more numbers to HTD's page view stats below, the attendance of about 90% of the matches in this years tournament was 100 or less (one or two matches not involving the home team broke 100. BTW, I can't find a single source in English giving attendance figures, I'm relying on the Russian Russian Wikipedia entry. I can only find 5 sources in total in English, and none are from a remotely major media source. It would be very hard to source this properly.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I dunno know from your end, but there's like a couple (~2) of Google News articles for bandy the sport. Most news about "Bandy" is about an Australian(?) guy. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The google news link I posted above leads to 5 sources stories (at my end), two from the same source. Perhaps then the earlier claim of 'wider media coverage' is correct :))).--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So it does look like this has wide interest, while items such as the Indonesian Super League have "limited interest". Yay. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Question: The Bandy World Championship is played annually, so that's one item per year. Isn't that way too much for a fringe sport? Come on, for a world championship event, it has been held outside Europe once! (Except for next year, of which a part of Kazakhstan is at Europe.) And previous editions were biennial. Even snooker which should be more popular than this only has one annual event. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose we are not a soapbox for fringe sports --Guerillero | My Talk 17:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose A "fairly big interest base" is not world news, and it is not an Olympic sport. Reywas92Talk 21:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Basketball

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Euroleague Added, No consensus for others. Cenarium (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Support Euroleague but oppose NCAA/UAAP. Sorry, but the college tournaments are of no interest to anyone outside the countries the competitions are held in. StrPby (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
'No interest outside the [USA]'is a bit of an exaggeration. The NCAA generates a fair amount of interest outside, in part because a number of foreign players take part. When the NCAA championship was posted last year, one of the reasons was that it was demonstrated that there was a sufficient amount of international interest (even though that it not a criterion).--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt we can talk about a college league seriously. Whether it is internationally significant or not, it's far from the popularity of the NBA and as a lower-rated league should be automatically dismissed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh please, college basketball is more popular than half the shit that gets posted. WhiteKongMan (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If you think something should be excluded, feel free to propose it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
How can I take bandy seriously when its view stats are absolutely atrocious. As stated below, even a lower-rated college volleyball league in a country where redheads are nonexistent gets higher views. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Let me explain you how to manipulate those numbers. You just click on the same article many times, which counts a view and enlarges the number. Another way is to create a bot, and use it to do it. With other words, you may get a high traffic numbers, but it doesn't tell you how many readers have made the views. Therefore I disregard the traffic through the articles as a useful criterion to determine whether something is significant and noteworthy for the readers or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Should I take this comment seriously? Are people really into "let's make this article super famous let's press F5 every half-millisecond" gimmick?
Nevertheless, if this is somehow magically true, it only involves articles with massive view stats, and not those with low view stats. How can you explain those? Some countries aren't counted? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how many times you view the article when editing, but it's probably more views per edit, which implies larger traffic. Normally, you don't need to perform the trick by clicking many times, but insensibly you perform it with editing or refreshing. And again, this criterion does not indicate how many people have viewed the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I would guess it would be two per edit, one before the edit and one after. Even if he pressed refresh a few times its hardly going to be particularly significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but you make more edits at once, and thereby more views. It is no problem if you edit it only once. The problem is that the changes are previewed rarely, which yields larger traffic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
@KS: Then again, not everyone who reads, edits. And like I said, how can you explain articles with low view (and presumably low edit) counts? Articles with massive stats, sure, I can consider it like how people think about Loose Change. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
@Eraserhead: KS is implying there's a massive conspiracy (somewhat) on these article views, and that someone/some group/bot spends all day refreshing webpages. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you get it wrong again. I don't accuse of conspiracy with refreshing articles, but would like to explain you why the criterion is not as good as you think. Statistically, it's impossible to get all the articles with 100+ or 1,000+ views per day, so there must be some with very low views. And if you even use it, how you can define the minimum number of views as sufficient? However this is a valid topic of discuss, because many users regard the importance of the topic directly on its traffic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Let me explain you how to manipulate those numbers. You just click on the same article many times, which counts a view and enlarges the number. Another way is to create a bot, and use it to do it"
So this is not a conspiracy? What do you call that? Just overly bored person with nothing else to do? Minimum number? Certainly not 523, the highest page views bandy got.
Anyway, these view stats, like it or not, are useful in determining what articles are viewed and which are not -- and they do give out surprising numbers sometimes. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not a conspiracy. It's only a shortcoming of the criterion. You can use a similar way to manipulate the Depth criterion, or something else, and it only makes it irrelevant. And another important thing is that it's not an apriori criterion which determines the significance. If you post the article on the main page, it surely will get times more views in a short period of time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, it's not a conspiracy. OK. As if anyone does that. OK, someone does that, but in scale so statistically insignificant it doesn't matter. Yeah, it doesn't matter now.
Of course an article on the main page gets x times as much clicks (this is particularly useful in DYK since most of the articles there are barely viewed by anyone else); now the questions are:
  • If a scheduled non-ITNR event gets a massive amount of views should it be on ITNR, bots and overly bored people refreshing web pages notwithstanding? and
  • If a scheduled ITNR event gets low page views prior to being added should it be on ITNR?
  • If a non-scheduled ITNR event gets low page views prior to being added should it be on ITNR?
BTW, what is our criteria now? Formerly it was of "international importance or interest" but that was removed. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem which should be discussed, and therefore I don't trust too much in numbers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
With your bots example above, and with Eraserhead's explanation above, I reckon the double page view is statistically insignificant (not everyone edits). You know, lemme try this on one article no one visits to see if this (2 views/edit) works -- that's the only skewer of stats, and not some random bored guy/bot who refreshes the page every second. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
With sport the only sensible criteria are level within the sport, so it wouldn't make sense to post the English Premier League and not the World Cup, and how popular it is, judging popularity from Wikipedia seems a reasonable way of doing things if the articles are roughly equivalent in quality. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not always the case, some "lower competitions" of the sport have higher profile than the others. An example is the FIFA Club World Cup and the UEFA Champions League. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This is also interesting. Probably the traffic through the articles and other related numbers are given due to the lack of other firm arguments. I appreciate to see other arguments, rather than only numbers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
What other criteria would you use to judge a sports significance beyond its popularity? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The widespread international play, fast-growing popularity, and the media coverage are used to judge in case-by-case the importance of the sports events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
How can you quantify those w/o getting subjective? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Easily. We need only a discussion with comments, such like in the ITN/C. As I noticed above I don't need to quantify something to get to the consensus.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Eh... that's being subjective. We rely on the biases of others. Can't we rely on something else other than our opinions? For example, can you fetch me how many Google News articles the Euroleague has on your end? Then let's compare it with the NBA, NCAA, etc., then we arrive at a cutoff. If the margin between several items is wide enough we can drop it. It's not "Him: This is important! I watch this all time! Her: No! I haven't even heard of this! Him: Look! It's the final already! It doesn't matter if you haven't heard of this!" –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree we rely on biases, and I don't like it as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't like many things on the English Wikipedia, but I can't do anything serious alone, and must accept the rules. Nevertheless, the opposition of those "biases" leads to neutrality, but the most serious problem is the instability in opinions on both sides.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Euroleague but oppose NCAA/UAAP. There's never been a consensus to post unprofessional sporting events on ITN, so it certainly shouldn't go on ITN/R. Nightw 03:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Euroleague and unsure on the others, I'd like to see some evidence of their notability, that they aren't professional isn't an issue for me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support Euroleague, strong oppose NCAA and UAAP. Amateur university sport has no place on ITN, as has been consistently determined time and again at ITN/C, every time an NCAA event is nominated. Modest Genius talk 23:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Euroleague, oppose others because they're collegiate tournaments of relatively small scale. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I wonder how many people opposing the NCAA tourney checked out last year's decision to add it to ITN, where it was proven that while it isn't a professional event, it still gets a shitload of international coverage. Also, shame on the person who added the Philippine tournament since it's probably just a ploy to sink the NCAA tourney by having them lumped together. WhiteKongMan (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That was a contentious item at the time (!votes were 9-6), was added by an inactive admin (in their only edit to T:ITN ever), was up for less than 36 hours ([2] [3]), and most of the support arguments were on the basis that that year's competition was unusually notable and a "once-in-a-generation sports story". That does not create a precedent and does not mean it should go up every year. I'll confess I had forgotten it went up though. Modest Genius talk 16:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for the Euroleague, and strong oppose for the two others. The Euroleague is an equivalent for the NBA league, which features clubs from more countries, with players not only from the native countries. For the NCAA, I utter it's too much to consider lower-rated leagues. And for the UAAP, I can't talk seriously. I wish all best for the basketball in the Philippines, but currently it is far from the basketball played in other countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Super-strong support for the NCAAs. Strong oppose for the others. Some of the arguments made above seem to be misinformed. For one, the NCAA "March Madness" is hardly "relatively small scale." It is one of the few biggest sports events in the U.S., with more than 48 million people watching at least part of last year's championship game. (Only 28 million watched Game 7 of the NBA Finals.) The games draw huge crowds, even in the early rounds, and even when they play the games in football stadiums, resale tickets cost thousands of dollars. One group claims the U.S. loses billions in productivity each year from workers watching afternoon first-round games on the first two days of the tournament. Those who oppose the NCAAs as "amateur university sport" are looking through the lens of sports in their own country, where it may not be a big deal, but in America, it's absolutely huge, and with nearly half of our readers in the U.S., that makes it non-trivial for ITN purposes. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggestion--Let's agree that there is no consensus on whether the NCAAs should be added and close discussion on it for now. We have to have this debate every year when finals actually happen (It will be nominated in April). I think no consensus either way is roughly where the ITN community stands, with very strong opinions being held on both sides making debate on this quite unproductive. Perhaps in a few months, though probably not, there will be some fresh opinions on the matter. The Euroleague, however, should be open for discussion. I can't offer an informed opinion on the UAAP but I think it's reasonable to say it won't gain a consensus for support and probably should be dropped from the debate as per WP:SNOW.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Euroleague and NCAA (though see my comment above re NCAA)--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all The Euroleague surpassed the NCAA is quality of play in the 1980s (see 1982 FIBA World Championship. The others are massively followed in their own countries (surprisingly, the UAAP/NCAA articles have higher view stats that some ITNR items LOL). If there's an article for Serbian and Lithuanian leagues I'd support those too. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
HTD, would you not support the PBA over the UAAP?--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Check out the view stats. The just concluded tournament article views had a tough time breaking a hundred views. Compare that UAAP volleyball. While the PBA TV ratings are reportedly higher than any collegiate sport on TV, my theory is that the PBA's intended audience are the poorer people who don't have access to the internet.
BTW, UAAP basketball view stats are down this year, probably due to a boring tournament. Instead, check out the view stats for... wait for it, cheerleading. It even trended on Twitter. I don't remember handball, bandy or anything that is being discussed here ever trending on Twitter worldwide. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I would support the most popular regular sporting event in the Philippines, with a population of 91 mil, be it the PBA or the UAAP.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd also support the most popular regular sporting event in any similar-sized countries, considering ITNR lists sporting events from countries with the size of Washington, D.C.. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, here are New York Times features of the UAAP and the PBA. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Euroleague and NCAA; oppose UAAP. Courcelles 12:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Euroleague but Oppose NCAA/UAAP - Per all the above reasons. March Madness really dosen't interest as many people as the NCAA thinks it does. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cricket

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Added. Cenarium (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Support IPL, widely covered event in a country of 1 billion people. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per HTD, India is undercovered and this is important to a lot of people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per HTD and Eraserhead1. GreyHood Talk 13:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a wide range of people follow this --Guerillero | My Talk 17:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. A very popular league.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I've opposed this at ITN/C before, but it's clearly become a fixture in the cricketing world and some of my earlier reasons have ceased to be major concerns. It's still a media event rather than a sporting one, but the wind is clearly blowing in this direction. Modest Genius talk 18:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per HTD and GreyHood. It's true that India is undercovered and many related topics should be included.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Football (soccer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
EPL added, No consensus for others. While some of the leagues may have a case for addition, there are too many contradicting views with no emerging consensus. There are also concerns that this may cause an overexposure of association football. A clearer case has been made for EPL though, and it has already been added to ITN. Addition of other leagues would call for further discussion. Cenarium (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Added after discussion:

Positions
  • Support the first four (England, Spain, Italy and Germany) but I don't know what's notable about the last three. WhiteKongMan (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the major European leagues as they have widespread international following. Oppose the last three - totally arbitrary selection with limited interest. Why those three and not a more widely-followed league? StrPby (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the first four (England, Spain, Italy and Germany). Neutral about the rest. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the first four, I would like to see some more non-European entries, but I don't think the South East Asian ones are particularly notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support the big three (Premier League, Serie A and La Liga), neutral on the Bundesliga (which isn't as major a league), and strong oppose the others. The reason for only weak support is that they all tend to finish around the same time, resulting in a glut of football stories (especially when combined with the UEFA competitions). The Asian leagues listed here are extremely minor in world football terms. Modest Genius talk 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support first four, oppose others, which are not as major. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral the first four, oppose the rest. It's vague to say what is big three, because the Bundesliga is currently better rated than the Serie A and it's not common to recall on the popularity in the most recent years (the Bundesliga was the highest-rated league in a period in the 1990s). However the report is sufficient for posting, but it will make the ITN template a football tabloid, so therefore I can't support it. The other leagues are far from the first in popularity and media coverage as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the Premier League. Oppose the rest. This is the English Wikipedia. There are Spanish, German and Italian Wikipedias, too. Yes, I know the Spanish, Italian and German soccer leagues are important in soccer. But if we include every important sporting event from the entire world, sports would dominate ITN. We should focus on what few events are of the most interest to our readers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the Premier League and La Liga. La Liga does command interest in the English speaking world (I saw plenty of Barcalona shirts in NYC). As for the others, it's difficult to know where to draw the line. The strength and popularity of the various leagues changes from time to time, but I'd say that Serie A is definitely not where it was before the Calciopoli scandal. Thus as things are at the moment I'd say EPL and La Liga are enough though that could be reassessed in years to come.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In rethinking this I'd probably go neutral on Serie A and Bundesliga, though the problem remains in a glut of football titles around May.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Rethinking again, I'm going to switch to oppose to all domestic leagues except the EPL for now. I believe there are many leagues that are popular enough given football's worldwide popularity if we want to list more it needs some thought. I am adding support for the CAF Champions League and the AFC Champions League.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all. All these leagues have higher interest that some events already listed at ITNR. It doesn't matter if its not popular in Europe... hopefully. I'm also planning to add the J.League, the Korean league and probably all the other soccer leagues elsewhere since all of those have higher interest than some events already listed at ITNR. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
If we're going to discuss football leagues outside of Europe, we should first and foremost discuss the South American leagues in Brazil and Argentina, and possibly Mexico, which have a higher level of play than those listed already. But honestly, we're getting a little carried away here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support EPL, and in fact I am surprised it is not on ITNR aleady. Strong oppose the rest, as this would simply give football too many items (not to mention the fact there is a huge drop in quality when you look at the EPL and MLS). --PlasmaTwa2 13:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all soccer is followed worldwide --Guerillero | My Talk 17:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support continental Champions Leagues (in addition to those on this list [the last three], I would also support OFC Champions League). Oppose arbitrary national leagues and cups. MTC (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This is the line of thinking I can't understand. You're practically saying let's add a tournament that no one cares about (OFC CL) and exclude other national leagues even if those leagues have 1000x as much interest as the former? Australia, which is neither in Indonesia or in the OFC, has more news items than the Indonesian Super League than the OFC Champions League. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support First 4, Oppose others I'd assume that the UEFA Champion's League is already included, because it should be. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all just because this is the English speaking wikipedia, doesn't mean some of us don't take an interest in sport forom non-English speaking countries. VJ (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Handball

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Both added. Cenarium (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Support both per bandy. StrPby (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly popular international team sport. It's just one grade down soccer, ice hockey and basketball in popularity. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Greyhood. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both, though we'll be lucky to get properly-updated articles (esp for the women's). Modest Genius talk 23:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support enough interest in this sport. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both With over 150 national teams the sport is surely one of the most popular in the world, but unfortunately not so popular in the Americas and Oceania, which is dubious to note as problematic in its inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Extreme oppose. See my argument under bandy. Team handball is simply not a major spectator sport to many of our readers. I don't care how many countries it's played in. Checkers is played everywhere, too, by some people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The 'international' popularity is limited to continental Europe at a serious level. It's not a top three team sport in any country as far as I can see (if someone can correct that, please do so) though it does get some coverage. But the bottom line is, there are many more significant sports not on ITNR, like, say Volleyball.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weakly support men's championship large enough view stats implies a large audience. ITNR items don't necessarily have to global interest. Dunno about the women, though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mixed martial arts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for adding. Cenarium (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Support though it should be "where the title is fought for" for clarity's sake. WhiteKongMan (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This 'sport' was created purely for media purposes, is only a step above wrestling, and there's no way we should be basing our items on broadcast payment options. Modest Genius talk 23:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Agree with Modern Genius. It's hardly even belongs under "sport". If something particularly notable happens one year, we can consider it as a nomination then. Nightw 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Case-by-case basis, although I don't predict this being on ITN soon. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as UFC's popularity is still arguably behind those of boxing and professional wrestling. And why would we post the Heavyweight title and not any others? What makes it so special? --PlasmaTwa2 19:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Because Lesnar still has to F5 someone LOL. Anyway I support UFC events where the heavyweight championship is defended. Massive view stats as compared to events which are not (even then, those events still have higher view stats than some items currently being discussed). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The Heavyweight title idea makes no sense, though. The largest UFC event in history will be UPC 129 in Toronto, but the Heavyweight title won't even be defended at it. The Welterweight title is just as prestigious as the Heavyweight, imo, and on top of that, I have to wonder how many of the page views for UFC events came from people wanting to learn more about Lesnar, rather than the event. --PlasmaTwa2 13:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The UFC events where Brock participated had World Cup-level views. While the other UFC events weren't that bad in view stats, if we're into listing every UFC event, it'll be too often. I see what you think but I can't think of a suggestion that won't be subjective (A: "this is the 'massivest' bandy game everrrrrr let's post it!" B: "What's bandy?" A: "Doesn't matter it's bandyyyyyyy and it's massive!!!!!!!!!11111.") .
As for indoor events being held in domed stadiums, every UFC event held in such places will be the "next largest UFC event," just like when the 2010 NBA All-Star Game became the most-attended basketball game in history (of course that wasn't listed at ITN).
Do you have any suggestions on how we include UFC w/o being subjective? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, as stated above, I oppose any UFC events on ITN, but I agree it is really hard to determine a cut-off point for UFC events. I did not mean to imply that UFC 129 should be on ITN because it will be the biggest in history, but rather to show that the Welterweight title holds the same prestige as the Heavyweight, considering the company is headlining such a major event with St-Pierre/Shields instead of Velasquez/whoever. Deciding to put the Heavyweight title on ITNR while ignoring the (argurably more popular) Welterweight division doesn't make much sense to me. This is something that is going to need a lot of discussion if it is going to make itn, because there' a lot of holes in this proposal. --PlasmaTwa2 15:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess that means going through the case-by-case basis route, more popularly known as ITN/C. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose we are not a soap box for media events --Guerillero | My Talk 17:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
UFC is a sporting event, not a media event. --PlasmaTwa2 13:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That's debatable. Modest Genius talk 13:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd classify MMA as a sport more than say, snooker or darts. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motorsport

Positions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus. Cenarium (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, one of the most internationally-recognised events on the motorsport calendar alongside others like Le Mans 24 Hours and the Monaco Grand Prix. StrPby (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per StrPby. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Difficult one. For now, oppose because we already include the Sprint Cup, of which the Daytona 500 is a part. I actually think we should remove the Monaco GP and Indy 500, and instead focus on the championships of the various classes: IndyCar series, touring cars (though quite what the top series is for touring cars is debatable), FIA GT1 World Championship. Modest Genius talk 23:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but would prefer focusing on championships and the Sprint Cup rather than individual races. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm torn on this one. I think that the Daytona 500 is up there with many of the sporting events we already have on ITN in terms of popularity. But we probably have enough sporting events on ITN already, and with people itching to add every sport they can think of to ITN, it's going to get out of hand. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose American racing events aren't that well-watched elsewhere. Except maybe for the Indy 500. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is American centric. I ask the question is there a large body of people outside the USA that follow this? --Guerillero | My Talk 17:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This was added on WP:ITN/C with the provision that this is swapped with the Indy 500. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Volleyball

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Added. Cenarium (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Support per bandy/handball. StrPby (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly popular international team sport. It's just one grade down soccer, ice hockey and basketball in popularity. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support, but dispute Greyhood's suggestion that this is close to ice hockey or even soccer(!) in popularity. Modest Genius talk 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support wide enough interest. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both Unlike handball volleyball is popular in all parts of the world, but it is limited with its lower media coverage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Again, volleyball is fun, yes, everyone has played it, but it's not an important spectator sport to many of our readers and, therefore, is not highly newsworthy as a sporting event. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It's a truly global sport and does command significant spectator support in some countries. And the Volleyball world's are only every four years.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the women's event, unsure on the men's event. Volleyball is good-enough spectator sport than say a certain item currently being debated above. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Football

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus. Cenarium (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Support American football is only posted once a year, which is significantly less often than equivalently popular sporting events. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, and can we please stop adding events after the !vote has already been running for a week? The same arguments as for every single NCAA discussion we ever have apply - this is an amateur university competition, is not the top level of the sport even within the country and has little to no interest outside the US. There are two other reasons in this case too: 1) the participants are chosen by a combination of computer algorithms and voting, rather than on-field competition and 2) less than 6 weeks ago we had a discussion on this (#American football above), which came to no consensus. Don't try to keep re-running the discussion until you get the result you want. Modest Genius talk 18:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Modest Genius and my reasoning in the discussion a month ago. If this is a different sport than the American football, it's a college, amateur, has a smattering international popularity, and therefore not sufficient for inclusion. If not, I'm oppose of posting lower-rated leagues in the same country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I only added it because all sorts of other stuff has been snuck in and changes made, and therefore I didn't think it was fair to leave it out as the only thing that wasn't included. I have no idea how the vote is going to pan out, but as this discussion has definitely offered a much wider selection of views as its on WP:CENT it seems reasonable to include it and get non-ITN regulars to give their views. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Arguably the second-biggest annual sporting event in the U.S. and a sport that is an obsession among many Wikipedia readers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not encyclopedia of the United States to use it as a firm argument, and I'm inclined to regard it as an American-centric comment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Which isn't really relevant, we've shown that ITN doesn't have a US geographical bias and most stuff that is posted isn't really of great international interest anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That's correct and I respect it, but the comment above does not show it. I don't accuse the work done on this language edition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The user doesn't present the English Wikipedia, so to consider my comment against the whole edition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support Has hundred times more page views than some ITNR items, even if you add up page views from other Wikipedia languages. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per HTD. There is simply too big of an interest from Wikipedia readers to ignore this game. --PlasmaTwa2 13:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: I would never support adding non-professional sporting events to ITN. This item has never even gotten through ITN/C, and I think debate should stay there. Popularity doesn't make a bit of difference. What's next? The WWE? Nightw 13:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't support the inclusion of GAA events. And yes, but that fake wrestling stuff is abnormally popular in Malaysia for some reason. Nightw 09:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Fake wrestling is abnormally popular everywhere except perhaps in NoKor... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose My long rant about how pathetically corrupt the BCS is aside, it's not a professional sport. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • As stated earlier, we now have two GAA events in the list, and those are not professional either. Two amateur events in Ireland, a country where megacities have higher population. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multi-sport events

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus, insufficient discussion to draw a conclusion. Cenarium (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening of the:

Positions
  • Support YOG, oppose opening of individual sporting championships. Wouldn't mind posting the athlete/swimmer with the most medals at the close of those events though. StrPby (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all. And I think there is some sense in posting both opening and closing of such major events, since posting the opening will help more readers and editors follow the event from the very beginning. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support YOG, Unsure about the others. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support aquatics and Athletics, but strong oppose youth olympics. The YOG is not a major professional competition, is restricted in its entry (by age), and has only happened once before so it's utterly impossible to judge its future impact. Modest Genius talk 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support last two, weakly support YOG. I agree that YOG is not professional but I think there is still a fair amount of interest in it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all The swimming and athletics are sports which feature the most popular athletes, receive too much attention, and aren't less popular than football or basketball. The YOG in Singapore exceeded the expected media coverage, so the event becomes sufficiently important for inclusion. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cue sports

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for addition. Cenarium (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Positions
  • Oppose. Why don't we post chess and poker while we're at it. Nightw 13:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know I added American football rather late, but this is really not reasonable to include this time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_3&oldid=1088079117"