Open main menu

Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8


Can an admin actually update ITN sometime? --Midnighttonight 08:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive criticism, we await more in the future. --Golbez 13:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on your contributions, I'm guessing you're annoyed no one's put up the Tim Selwyn story. Do try to point this out next time you're angry. Personally, I don't think I'll put it up, but other admins might think it's worthy. --Golbez 13:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
sorry, I was having a bad day yesterday. --Midnighttonight 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Entirely fair enough, it happens to all of us. I probably was too. :) --Golbez 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it more likely now that he's been found guilty of sedition? --Midnighttonight 07:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Could be. Propose it on the candidates page. --Golbez 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


We (and the real media) have had this in headlines like 5 times. I'm just gonna go out on a limb and suggest we wait for actual proof this time.--Pharos 07:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The line says "# Terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is killed in a Predator UAV", was he travelling in it? Lapinmies 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The report has been confirmed - it's definitely him. Raul654 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Iraqi PM made the announcement, so I've changed it from "News outlets report..." Harro5 08:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
the picture is incorrectly tagged. The US Gov released the video, but did not create it, so it's not PD. It is, on the other hand, really really strong fair use. Night Gyr 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup

I don't have a problem with putting the final World Cup match scores up, but at the bottom of the box as with other sporting events. Do we really want ITN to be headed by scores for a month? - BT 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

YES!! GO HOLLAND!!! er... no I agree with you that would be silly :) I would assume that we do something similar to the Winter Olympics, which would be to promote the Current sports events page prominently in this template and record all the scores there. jacoplane 20:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What was agreed upon on Talk:Main Page was to keep the entry short (ie, 1 line), and to update that one line with the most recent scores (thus removing old scores). If people want old results, they can look in the article. Otherwise, ITN is going to be flooded with scores. Should the title be changed to "2006 FIFA World Cup today" or "Today's 2006 FIFA World Cup" or "FIFA World Cup for October 22"? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 16:21

  • Also, if we get a lot of entries for 1 day, we could always switch to the country codes instead of the entire country name. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 16:29
I Agree,, that the world cup scores are in there,, it's the biggest sporting even in the world!! --mo-- (Talk | #info |   ) 16:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
And I do not care one bit about it, so I want to be able to hide those scores using my monobook.css, and putting them into a table prevents me from doing so. Denelson83 18:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
To hide it, add the following to your User:YOURNAME/monobook.css file, and after saving, press CTRL+F5 to refresh the file: #worldcup { display: none; }
BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 19:14

Actually, I can't seem to get it to work. I've been purging caches left and right, and it still shows up. It only disappears when I view the template page, not the main page. In the page source code for the main page, it sticks </div> right after the <div id="worldcup">. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 19:17

  • I moved the <div> after the <br>, and now it works. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 19:23
    • Yep, same here. I was just about to try the same thing, but you beat me to it. :) —David Levy 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditch the scores

With the latest Stanley Cup revert war, I say we ditch the whole thing before it gets completely out of hand. When the finals of both of these cups are determined, go ahead and put an entry in, but until then, don't flood ITN with pointless statistics, which will only encourage every other sport to flood with their scores, claiming precedence. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 02:28

The addition of the Stanley Cup Finals scores was along the lines of disrupting Wikipedia to proving a point, which is rather petty behaviour from some editors. --Madchester 02:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It clearly wasn't my intent to make a point, it was only posting information similar to information already on the main page. All being said I'm happy with the no scores whatsoever policy on the front page, to maintain a sports npov as otherwise we could see every game being listed, even kids games -- Tawker 04:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Read the edit summaries; it wasn't meant as a point. They listed Stanley Cup mid-game scores, just as people are listing World Cup mid-game scores. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 02:37
When/where has anyone listed World Cup mid-game scores? —David Levy 03:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw a 0-0 score listed there for a while. What was that? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 04:30
Trinidad&Tobago drew Sweden 0-0, maybe? It was the final score, and probably the most exceptional result so far in the WC (Trinidad&Tobago playing with only 10 players in the second half). But let's wait for even bigger upsets before we consider mentioning it on the main page. Shanes 04:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that we're having revert wars on the main page, would anyone care to explain why the World Cup scores are allowed, but Stanley Cup are not? I think it's clear neither should be allowed. Madchester (talk · contribs): don't abuse rollback; that wasn't vandalism you reverted. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 02:53

No kidding and it wasn't making a point... me and Tawker saw the world cup scores and though why not? Both major sporting events and we've put Superbowl scores in before as well as Olympic highlights... I won't revert but the use of rollback was probably not thought out and also how the heck is that disruption? I don't see how adding scrores to a template with scores already is possibly disruption. And you think that's bad behaiviour from me? Sasquatch t|c 03:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I went bold and ditched the World Cup scores. I wouldn't mind putting in the scores for the playoffs but the round robin can't possibly be included while the Stanley Cup isn't... that'd be a bad double standard. Sasquatch t|c 03:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that the winners of major tournaments like the Australian Open (tennis), SuperBowl, UEFA Champions League Final, or World Series only had an ITN listing after the winner had been determined. However, these events don't have the international clout of the World Cup or the Olympics. It's really that simple.
If you look at coverage of the international media right now, the World Cup makes daily headlines; not the Stanley Cup. Just take a look at assorted media outlets like South China Morning Post, NY Times, Asahi Shimbun, Times of London, etc. The international media will report on the winner of the finals, not the winner of individual games. --Madchester 03:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the World Cup scores shouldn't be listed on the main page, but I do recognize a distinction. On top of the fact that the World Cup games are considerably more newsworthy on an international level, they also are self-contained match-ups to determine which team(s) remain in contention. Conversely, the Stanley Cup finals are a series of games played between the same two teams, with the individual games holding less importance for either. When one of them actually wins the Stanley Cup, that will warrant an ITN entry. (The same applies to any major athletic championship.) And yes, I realize that no one has won the World Cup yet, but I'm personally willing to make this concession in the interest of diplomacy. —David Levy 03:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I know it's subjective, but the World Cup is a huge global event, whereas the Stanley Cup solely involves franchises in the US and Canada as one of many professional sporting leagues' finals series. I'd say that the winners of most events equivalent in size to the Stanley Cup (eg. Superbowl, UEFA Champion's League, Cricket World Cup) usually get a mention in the ITN when decided, but the World Cup is really on the same level as the Commonwealth Games (if not the Olympics) in size and international importance/interest/newsworthiness. The Comm. Games did get similar daily results updates, and so I think it is more than acceptable to list World Cup scores (but full-time scores, not live in-game updates as someone above suggests was happening) These arejust my views. Harro5 03:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the World Cup has much more clout than the Stanley Cup but I still will hold only the playoff should be reported. For the Commonwealth and Olympics there are so many different events to report that I can see a reason. However, the World Cup should stick with the precedent set already of just reporting the major matches (i.e. playoff games). I wouldn't object to a link to the World Cup page on in the news though. That sounds like a decent compromise. Sasquatch t|c 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Both can have their entry on ITN, when the finals are over. Until then, leave the statistics of the unimportant matches off the main page. And stop revert warring on the main page. What does having your way for 5 minutes do for the encyclopedia? Nothing. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:17

That's my preference as well, but I was fairly satisfied with the previous compromise. The biggest problem, as you noted, was that it seemingly opened the floodgates for any number of sports scores. —David Levy 03:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I support dropping match scores from these early WC games. It's not what ITN is meant for. If anything exceptional happens, like a really major favourit being knocked out in the group stage (leading most likely to lots of press-hoopla about it, trainers being sacked and the very early exit being a notable thing in WC history), then a line mentioning this is fine. But giving the scores for every one of the 64 WC-matches, is too much. ITN is not a news-ticker. Shanes 03:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. But if Brazil gets beat by Australia 10 to nil, put it in ITN! Sasquatch t|c 03:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. When they're in the finals, then they can get an entry. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:48
Oh, yes. Heh, 10-0, that would be something... But I'd say it's note worthy enough if they just beat them. It would be an event on level with the Miracle on Ice, and most likely leading to a seperate article just about the match. And in that case, I'm fine with listing it. Shanes 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the above kind of position is a sensible one: mention the major milestones in what is undoubtedly a major event (but only when there are udpated relevant articles. I don't think that the presumably IRC-driven decision by Sasquatch and Tawker to add the other event's scores in was a particularly clever one, like most decisions that earn on-the-spot cheers in IRC. -Splash - tk 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree. But I do think it's important to point out that it is just plain silly to compare the Stanley Cup to the World Cup as some people have done. If you prefer the Stanley Cup to the World Cup, that's fine and that's your right. But the fact of the matter is, the World Cup is much more popular worldwide then the Stanley Cup and garners headliens much more. Heck I suspect many fairly educated people have never heard of the Stanley Cup (I hadn't) yet most educated people would have heard of the World Cup and in many countries, even the fairly uneducated have. Nil Einne 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Most people have heard of bird flu, but we don't update ITN everytime a new country gets bird flu. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 04:29
I would hope that an unbiased person would see that the Stanley Cup FINALS at least can compare to a ROUND ROBIN World Cup game. There's 48 round robin games... Of course the World Cup Finals are probably one the most, if not the most, important game in international sports, but do we really want a round robin ticker? Anyways, I think the issued is settled in any case. Sasquatch t|c 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this sure ended up as a pretty big discussion. Obviously I wasn't trying to make a point, I just saw WC scores updated in progress (from what I could tell) and to keep a npov with respect to sports I added the hockey finals. On another look I think lets banish all sports scores from the main page, wheel wars won't help anyone or anything. With respect to the rollback on the main page, don't to it - it's clearly not what rollback was intended for. I only re-added the info the once as I was in the belief that it wasn't a point and after seeing rationales I wish to note I did not touch it again (despire the famous "block threats") -- Tawker 04:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about this. When the finals of a major sporting event happen, we do a 1 line text entry of the fact. No scoreboards, no match by match scores (we have a portal for that) - just one text entry when the final game is won. As for it not being important, I thought the point of Wikipedia was to help spread knowledge, if someone didn't know about the Stanley cup and was interested, information is a wikilink away and the voila you would know what it is. In any case, lets make it a firm policy to post only when the grand slam is won (someone actually wins the hardware) rather than every game (I can turn on ESPN for the other anytime) -- Tawker 04:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Or, we could code a javascript ticker, with small icons for each of the teams, and logos of their chief financial supporters, with complete stats about each player, and video highlights. How does that sound? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 04:55
    • No, no, Brian, that's completely insane. ... Logos are fair use! They can't be on the front page! ;) --Golbez 05:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Forget the logos, that sounds like a great idea. We could also expand it to a CNN like ticker with such headlines as "Cat dies in Djibouti" and then build up from there. Sasquatch t|c 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • (ec) Well, that doesn't sound like a bad idea. What is lost in this is that the World Cup is an event several orders of magnitude more important than the Stanley Cup - a single "round robin" game caused two national holidays, and the Stanley Cup didn't do that. Also, during the Olympics, only two or three lines were shown at once. There's only three games daily at most, so there is room and precedent for doing this. And since when are we bold on the freaking Main Page? Did anyone forget the extremely long discussion to redesign it? Titoxd(?!?) 05:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Would it be bold to remove the Main Page? — ceejayoz talk 05:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And how do you decide what can have a ticker and what can't? Why don't we have tickers for The Ashes and the Rugby World Cup and the entire NFL playoffs and the... Then we really are at Brian's idea. Sasquatch t|c 05:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well with respect to Titoxd, its rather hard to have a national holiday on a weekend, I think the big issues is having a sports ticker a la ESPN, which I think overall consensus is not to do. I'm not saying the World Cup isn't important (heck, my TV has been on for the last 4 hours watching it) but it does raise the whole what sports are important enough for the main page argument. I'd rather avoid the full thing and have a no scores on the main page policy, and do as I posted above, a text line when hardware is won -- Tawker 05:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this thus far in the midst of this whole debate, but I think everyone's forgetting rule number one, though... these are supposed to be links to recently-updated articles. For the Olympics, there tended to be articles like Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics and Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics which the updates from ITN were drawn from, and the items from ITN comprised a relatively prominent piece of information in those articles. England national football team is not likely to be notably modified as a result of a round-robin game. (For that matter Edmonton Oilers is likewise unlikely to see a major modification as a result of winning game 3 of the Stanley Cup finals.) Outcomes from final matches in major leagues (Superbowl, English Premiership, Stanley Cup etc.) and things like The Ashes are notable enough to treat as garden variety news entries after the fact. In contrast to that, the Olympic subheading make sense as a distinct running section. I was somewhat meh on the Commonwealth Games section we ran, but oh well, under the bridge. The World Cup in principle deserves equal billing to the Olympics (and, FWIW, as a hockey fan, I'd still put WC round-robin matches considerably ahead in importance over NHL games). But Wikipedia is not SportsCentre, and unless the section has a distinct encylopedic spin on it, that is to say it broadly meets the same standards as the rest of ITN, I say leave them out until we actually get to events that have a substantial impact on the FIFA world cup article, like the finals and semi-finals. The Tom 05:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the general consensus on this issue now. Sasquatch t|c 06:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I was under the impression that the 2006 FIFA World Cup article was going to be updated with detailed accounts of the individual games (not merely the scores themselves). I was very disappointed to learn that this was not the case. ITN really shouldn't be a news/sports ticker, as this runs contrary to the basic nature of Wikipedia. —David Levy 14:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the primary issue here is that it's really bad to change back and forth. Inconsistencies on the front page just gives wikipedia a bad name. Once the scores were up, they should have stayed up. Perhaps they shouldn't have been there in the first place, but that should have been discussed before posting them in the first place. As the world cup is followed by a huge number of people, you can be sure that a large number of people discovered that they could see the score on the main page of wikipedia. And now? It just enforces an image of unreliability. --Denoir 07:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys don't get it. Had you checked other languages of Wikipedia you would find that their contributers neither debated the existence of a scoreboard on the front page, nor thought about debating the existence of a scoreboard on the front page. Perhaps it is because of an ignorant North American notion that the only sports that exist are the major leagues of baseball, American football, basketball, and Hockey. Shocking results from a survey find 1 in 7 Americans know that their team has made it to this prestigious international competition. The root of this debate, really, stems from the problem that Wikipedia's English edition has a major American background, which is why I call on the British contributors to Wikipedia to really speak up. Let's remind ourselves that Commonwealth Games results were posted on the main page, as were Olympic results, on a day-by-day basis. The World Cup receives a greater audience than the Olympics, Google has made the World Cup one of the two sporting events that it is willing to change its logo for, and almost every notable TV network in the world (even the American ones) have special World Cup tabs, predominantly very visible on the main page. Apparently a little box for the world cup is too much of an eyeful on the main page of Wikipedia, while over 2 billion watch on around the globe.

I will not revert any changes, by the way, as I am not liscenced to. Just giving some food for thought. --Colipon+(T) 07:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this must be the fault of those ignorant, arrogant Americans. It couldn't possibly stem from the fact that the World Cup scores fail to meet ITN's basic inclusion criteria. Yep, we Americans are all biased in favor of the Commonwealth Games, despite the fact that we don't participate.
I went out of my way to attempt to accommodate the World Cup fans (despite knowing that those scores didn't actually belong on the main page). Having now seen my country assailed by more than one editor, I regret having expended the effort. This was a concession (not an entitlement), and it appears to have done more harm than good. —David Levy 14:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Biggest sporting event there is which is dominating the news and people here won't accept a one line list of results? Pathetic, tbh. violet/riga (t) 11:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If this were Wikinews, I would agree. —David Levy 14:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If there are well updated wikipedia articles, I would agree. Just the score, no, that's pathetically too little updating. There should be at least a brief game summary before ITN can be considered. -- 14:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. With so many editors stressing the importance of these matches, I assumed that someone would actually document them in a substantive, encyclopedic manner. I was mistaken. —David Levy 16:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How about adding this:

The current sports events page could use the extra promotion, and it's a god place to keep track of the scores. jacoplane 11:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I wasn't aware of the Current sports events page being this good, don't think I've ever read it actually. So, I agree that it could do with some promotion and it wouldn't hurt to try your idea out. There's of course the danger of people then wanting other current sub-pages listed. But I can't find any of them being this timely and frequently updated. Shanes 11:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If we had results from the Olympics, on ITN, we should have results from the World Cup, which is arguably a bigger sporting event than the Olympics. This is considerably larger than the Stanley Cup, surely, which is mostly cared about by people in Canada (OK, and some parts of the US. But I think most of us Americans care about the NHL only slightly more than we care about the World Cup). john k 11:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! About the 2006 NBA Finals? Surely that is big news too, especially in places when football and hockey are not the biggest games. Circa 1900 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so how about this:
jacoplane 13:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The NBA & NHL playoffs started weeks ago. Don't bring them up now. Wait till we have a champion, then put that on ITN. If there are more pages to update and showcase, put them on ITN. ITN is NOT a place to report news happenings, but a place to showcase Wikipedia's updatedness. Roll back a few months of edit history and you'll see that not every sports got on ITN during the Winter Olympics. Only those with updated articles (the sports, the results page, and the gold medalist's bio, etc.) got featured. 2006 FIFA World Cup doesn't belong to ITN anymore because the amount of update after each game is so minimal -- just the score, I get more from the ticker on a PDA. However, the final of the 2006 French Open should be on ITN. Justine Henin-Hardenne winning the Women's Singles title can be posted now, and whoever winning on the men's side (Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal) can be posted later today, esp if Nadal keeps his winning streak on clay going. 13:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC) [Don't mention Nadal's streak on ITN, though. Just the final score. -- 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)]
Let's not forget the trick pool, dodgeball, and poker results! Or we could just keep sports off the main page, since this is an encyclopedia after all. I doubt Britannica's employees fight to get the World Cup on their main page, simply because they like to watch the World Cup in their free time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 14:11
Britannica? You mean that one with a large featured article all about the World Cup? Hmm. violet/riga (t) 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
FIFA World Cup was our featured article this past Thursday, and it will be remain linked from the main page through today. —David Levy 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't "censor" sports off ITN, I'd say. It's an important part of human culture. The issue is "major-ness". Grand Slam (tennis) final results should qualify. So do the final winner of the FIFA World Cup, the NHL playoffs, the NBA playoffs, .... these major events are in the news, so they should be on In the news. But "trick pool, dodgeball, and poker" ? Probably not. There aren't good wikipedia pages about these "sports" to update and then showcase on ITN, anyway. -- 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC) & 14:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not ESPN. Jacoplane is already up to 3 lines of this nonsense, eventually it will hit 4 or 5, and outweigh the news entries about matters that are actually important. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 14:33
Hmm, I did't edit the template because I didn't want to continue the edit war. Ohh well, I tried to suggest a compromise, I'm done if I'm just getting accused of saying nonsense. If the world cup is not included in "matters that are actually important" but Justin Gatlin tying the 100M World record or small event in the winter olympics is then I just don't know. jacoplane 15:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
And adding Current sports events to the Main Page is not a good idea. References (external newslinks) there are almost always missing. -- 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I just say, I found those score really useful - I just logged on now to find out the result of the Holland game, and it's not there. I'll go elsewhere to find out the news, and needless to say, I won't be looking at the articles here to see the current tables - future matches, and team make-up - in stark contrast to yesterday when I discovered the richness of our World Cup pages. I firmly believe the inclusion of Stanley Cup results was as some sort of protest, and not as an attempt to improve Wikipedia. It is entirely justifiable to put up world cup scores - the average viewing figures for each match last time was over 350 million - more than the population of Canada and the United States put together. As for the Stanley Cup - I literally had to click on the article to find out what it is. Dmn Դմն 15:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't make it much more difficult to look up the articles. However, the inclusion of the Stanley Cup did come at an interesting time since it provided the perfect "slippery slope" argument that was needed to get the World Cup off the front page. jacoplane 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and I'm inclined to believe that this was precisely the intended effect. I approve of the outcome, but I don't condone the means. —David Levy 16:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
For the umptheen time, I wasn't trying to make a point when I posted the score, I was only following the example already provided in the WC scores. Looking at the arguments in here, the no score policy does make more sense, but I'm starting to sound like a broken iPod saying that I wasn't trying to make a point! -- Tawker 18:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You might not have viewed your action in this light, but your motive obviously was comparable. You know perfectly well that ITN is not a live news/sports ticker, and I seriously doubt that you were oblivious to the unconventionality and controversy of the World Cup subsection. At best, your decision to add the Stanley Cup score (while the game was ongoing, no less) was based upon an attitude along the lines of "two wrongs make a right." ("The World Cup scores shouldn't be listed on the main page, but if they're going to be, the Stanley Cup score should be there too!") —David Levy 18:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the World Cup is one of the biggest sports events, watched by billions, not including it is farcical. There is no logic however in including local sports events. BTW what the heck is the Stanley Cup? How is it comparible to the world's biggest sports event at the moment? FearÉIREANN \(caint) 15:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Not including it"? It's right there, despite the fact that we usually don't add entries pertaining to athletic tournaments/championships until their conclusion. —David Levy 16:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just went to the wikipedia homepage to check todays world cup scores and was disappointed to find them not there. Now ive skimmed the talk page (sorry if ive missed out on anything ive skimmed over) and thought id add my opinion as the current consensus seems to be slightly biased in my opinion .I know its all perspective but an estimated 1.5 billion people (according to bbc live coverage) are said to have watched the opening world cup game worldwide. Although I coming from a European viewpoint ive never heard of the Stanley playoff and im sure less than 1.5 billion people worldwide have, forget about watched it. The Olympics always get a mention and to many around the world (including many English speaking countries) the world cup is the most important sports event bar none. Contemplating putting the Stanley playoff on the same level as the world cup or even to suggest the Olympics is more important seems slightly biased to me. Just my point of view. 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But then again, Wikipedia has to have a NPOV - it's international and really it comes down to an all or nothing policy. We can't add one section while ignoring another as it does make it seem like we have a bias. Once we start adding one score it does start to lead to a pandora's box, what is to prevent every single game in existance from being put on the main page, with Wikipedia's international reach we'd likely have more scores than ESPN can report in a day. -- Tawker 18:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting NPOV. We balance things, but that doesn't mean equal weight, and something that is clearly more important gets more space than something clearly less important. The finals (remember that this is the finals already) of the top international competition of the world's top sport, or the regional finals for one of the world's more minor sports? Equal billing would actually be contrary to NPOV. TheGrappler 21:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia.

Why are so many people—including some sysops—under the impression that the purpose of ITN is to report news headlines, irrespective of whether they pertain to major article revisions?

No one is disputing the World Cup scores' newsworthiness, but this is not a news site. —David Levy 16:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The basic idea with ITN is to provide encyclopedic coverage of things reported in the news. Basically when the news is "Togo invades Canada" people can learn about Togo, Canada and the background of the conflict. The point being providing background information, rather than reporting news. So from that point of view just reporting the scores of a sports event has no place there.
However, even if there isn't an extensive article for each match, there is one for each country. This suits quite well in an encyclopedia as it spreads knowledge. Frankly, given the popularity of the world cup, we're missing a great chance here for people to learn more about the history, geography, demographics etc of the many countries participating. --Denoir 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that people desiring to read about nations other than their own will fail to do so until presented with the countries' names in the context of a sports score? Likewise, do you believe that people without such a pre-existing interest will suddenly be compelled to educate themselves?
Regardless, we weren't even linking to the countries' articles; we were linking to those of the football teams, all but one of which were not sufficiently updated. —David Levy 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
In ansswer to David Levys question, I only clicked on the World Cup pages and indeed Paraguay's team, only after clicking on the links on the front page - yes. Dmn Դմն 17:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
That isn't what I asked. Denoir referred to the countries themselves, not their national football teams. —David Levy 18:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
When I was watching Ecuador-Poland in a bar, a lot of people were trying to figure out where exactly Ecuador was - dialing to look it up on their cell phones, and such. This is, I think, a common thing for people to do in such situations. john k 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
There were major article revisions, just take a look at England national football team. There was a lot of activity while it was on the front page, when it was removed the editing slowed. The point is not having the scores, it is featuring the articles on the countries. Those are the articles being linked to, the scores are just complementary. jacoplane 17:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You've cited the one team article that was updated with more than a few sentences about the game. Most of them weren't even updated to that extent (with some actually lacking past-tense references). —David Levy 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually that wasn't the only article to be updated substantially while being on the main page. Côte d'Ivoire, Trinidad & Tobago, etc. I just picked England as an example. jacoplane 17:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
In Côte d'Ivoire national football team, I count three sentences pertaining to the result of the game. In Trinidad and Tobago national football team, I count one. —David Levy 17:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
In the article on Justin Gatlin, which was featured on the main page for over five days, there were also only three sentences related to the event added to the article. Why were such objections not raised then? But fine, if this is the standard we're going to have, then I hope we'll also keep the same standard moving forward, including the 2008 Summer Olympics. This discussion and its outcome will definitely be brought up then. jacoplane 18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. The section was misused during the Olympics, and this should be prevented in the future. —David Levy 18:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I'm all for keeping "In the news" for what it is now... Again, if the World Cup is allowed... what about updating every single point in Wimbledon matches? Sasquatch t|c 18:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
But we're not keeping the scores updated goal for goal - it's done at the end of the match. How do people fail to understand that? violet/riga (t) 19:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Do you honestly believe that people desiring to read about nations other than their own will fail to do so until presented with the countries' names in the context of a sports score? Likewise, do you believe that people without such a pre-existing interest will suddenly be compelled to educate themselves? Regardless, we weren't even linking to the countries' articles; we were linking to those of the football teams, all but one of which were not sufficiently updated."

People want inspirations and suggestions to what to learn and explore. Have you never wandered off on wikipedia, starting on one topic and ending up somewhere completely different? The associative hyperlinked exploration model is what makes wikipedia so great. --Denoir 18:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but there are better ways to bring countries to people's attention. We weren't even linking to their articles. —David Levy 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, ITN is not there to show updated articles. We have "Recent changes" for that. It's to provide an convenient entry point to articles that are assumed to be widely requested as they have been presented in the news. --Denoir 18:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Both of the above criteria apply. Quoth the template's description:
"In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event—rather than conventional news items."
David Levy 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, billions of people are watching the games, yet a few people here think that they shouldn't be linked? Far more people will be wanting to visit the related articles than "Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa is elected President of the 61st United Nations General Assembly". Those of you arguing against it are showing a clear bias and misunderstanding of the ITN section. violet/riga (t) 19:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, billions of people are watching the games, yet a few people here think that they shouldn't be linked?
The article is linked, despite the fact that we usually wait until an athletic tournament/championship's conclusion.
Far more people will be wanting to visit the related articles than "Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa is elected President of the 61st United Nations General Assembly".
What's stopping them?
Those of you arguing against it are showing a clear bias and misunderstanding of the ITN section.
You seem to be projecting. I won't, however, refer to you as an idiot (as you did in your edit summary). —David Levy 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The biggest news story needs coverage on our front page. Either that, or scrap ITN. Guettarda 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, an entry for the 2006 FIFA World Cup is present.David Levy 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "The section was misused during the Olympics" - does previous practice in fact suggest that the function of ITN has moved on a little, to be more flexible around the very most important sporting occasions? Remember that all rules are for interpretation, and that previous practice may be a better guide than written rules and could establish new conventions. At any rate, there are three pages that should be updated with each match - the two national team pages, and the main World Cup scores page itself - and all should be linked to. It is also inaccurate to say that simply the score is reproduced there - unlike ITN, vital details of scorers and timings are added. As for "I would hope that an unbiased person would see that the Stanley Cup FINALS at least can compare to a ROUND ROBIN World Cup game" - I suspect that if this is the attitude here, no wonder the non-North American editors are frustrated! The Stanley Cup is a local (albeit high class) competition in a globally minor sport. The vast majority of people on this planet have never even heard of it. I suspect most have never even heard of the sport! The World Cup is the top competition in a sport which is top in virtually every country, with only a handful of anomalies. The majority of the world's population is watching it, indeed, are absolutely passionate about it. I fear what editors are failing to understand here is that for most countries, their round robin World Cup games are their own Superbowl equivalents - or even bigger. Little unites a country like the World Cup. I can't walk down my road without seeing houses draped in flags, and autos with flags waving from the rooves. Almost all the people I see in the street are in replica football kits. The newspapers (even the "quality" ones), radio and TV are just non-stop World Cup coverage. Every game my country plays is a national sensation - and will be in the other country as well. The passion is awe-inspiring. You could tell who has won or lost just by looking at people's faces the next day - or the fact that you're kept up late by the noise of the parties when there's a win. Culturally, socially, and in the media, this is the biggest thing for four years. It's huge - for a North American equivalent, try to imagine the passion there is when you support your local team in the play-offs (for instance, in the Stanley Cup... the Bosox and the World Series spring to mind too) and scale it up to an entire country. Then scale that up to all the different countries in the World Cup. Then add the hundreds of millions in other countries just tuning in out of their passion for football. These round robin games are in no sense "minor" - remember that the qualification series is very tough (and causes genuine heartbreak and misery, as well as rioting). So if a country gets through to the World Cup finals (i.e. the tournament happening now), that is the sporting highlight for four years for the entire country (USA excepted). Since many will be going home after the group stage, these round robin games are critical and all the fans know it.
If you need a rule to decide which sporting events deserve a bottom section in ITN, how about this: any multinational sporting event lasting between one and five weeks which more than one billion people will watch and which has a series of updated articles deserves a separate section with the most important recent results listed? The Commonwealth Games and Winter Olympics were frankly marginal candidates, the Stanley Cup absurd (unless you want to add the Bundesliga, FA Premiership, La Liga, Serie A, J-League, ... all bigger in their respective countries!), the Rugby World Cup extremely marginal, the Cricket World Cup probably has a three stage competition so likely only last two would be covered in depth, but as for the Summer Olympics and The World Cup (heck, in 95% of countries there's no need at all to say which sport it is...) they are surely no-brainers. Not including the World Cup but including the Summer and Winter Olympics definitely gives the impression of a serious North American bias, whether that's true or false. Sincerely, a football-sick football-hater, TheGrappler 19:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
1. This is not a news site. You're far from the first person to note the World Cup's immense popularity (which I've yet to see anyone attempt to refute), but this alone does not satisfy our criteria for inclusion in ITN.
2. You specified the "three pages that should be updated with each match." A big part of the problem is that they usually aren't being updated to any reasonable extent. Some of the linked national football team articles didn't even contain references to the matches' outcomes! If we aren't directing our readers to reasonably comprehensive, encyclopedic information about the games, we're simply reporting the scores. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. —David Levy 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. As for (1), we may not be a news site, but "this alone does not satisfy our criteria for inclusion in ITN" is precisely what I was disputing. I think the criteria are actually more flexible than the current version of the "written rules" (remember, even the rules are wiki). Past practice suggests we should have World Cup coverage - there seems to be a convention, additional to the underlying rules. "Wikipedia is not a news site" means "Wikipedia is not primarily a place for the reporting of news, but articles should be kept updated with current events". ITN is a knock-on result from that: it showcases articles affected in that way. I think we can all agree on this. However, the style of ITN is to report items in a newsfeed type manner, linking to the appropriately updated articles. So "Wikipedia is not a news site" is not a killer argument that automatically trumps all other arguments. The question is really: "to what degree of detail should ITN go into on current events" in this case, the leading sporting event in particular. "U.S. and Iraqi officials confirm that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, has been killed in Diyala." is a good example of a newsfeed type item: it doesn't link to a story about Zarqawi's death, but rather an updated article about Zarqawi. So, half-line entry for "Mexico 3-1 Iran", linking not to a match report but instead to the Mexico and Iran football team pages and (perhaps linked via the scoreline) to the appropriate Group section of the World Cup article (which certainly is updated, and would be the main article in point) seems valid in the same way. Would it make a difference if different groups had their own pages rather than being subsections of one page? Then the link for the "most relevant updated page" could go to that one. But in principle I can't see why it should matter whether it is a page or a subsection of a (large) page that is being linked to... at any rate, WP:NOT is not the trump rule here, we must consider carefully and sensitively how we apply it, and at what degree coverage of (I apologise for reiterating) what is for millions of people the biggest thing for 4 years counts as encyclopedic or news-based. Keeping for an entire month "The 2006 FIFA World Cup continues in Germany" on ITR would be silly (after all, why not keep the ITR byline updated?) and removing it from ITR altogether would just be crazy (we have an article, kept updated, about what is likely to be the world's leading news story for the next month... at the very least something needs to be on ITR). Rather than keeping it static, or attempting to summarise key recent developments (virtually impossible - although there may be a few shock results, in the main, different countries have completely different media focuses during the World Cup), a line of the most recent scores (and there are only a few a day) seems sensible, at least until teams start to go through or be eliminated and that could be mentioned. (2) Like I said, the main page for the World Cup is split into different sections for the different groups. At the very least these are kept updated and could be linked to using "#". TheGrappler 20:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
1. If you believe that ITN's scope should be broadened, that certainly is a reasonable change to propose. It must, however, apply to all newsworthy events (not merely the World Cup). Some have cited the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games as precedents, but I don't believe that we should be bound by past decisions (which may have been incorrect).
2. I'm not suggesting that every entry should have a dedicated article. One of my main objections is that most of the updates in question are not nearly comprehensive enough. Whether in separate articles or combined into a single article, I was under the impression that users were going to contribute detailed accounts of each match (similar to what was written about Super Bowl XL before and during its ITN listing). Updated scores/standings simply aren't sufficient. —David Levy 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
My main problem is still why are they coming to Wikipedia as their World Cup update source? I see no need for it. Surely if it's so popular, you would a) know the scores already though another site and b) know that we already have a 2006 FIFA World Cup article. In the news was never meant to be and should never be a sports ticker for any event. It's for all aspects of news. And I think the compromise is fair as not ALL world cup games are newsworthy. However, should a major upset happen, I'm sure it will be put it right away (e.g. Australia defeats Brazil). Otherwise, I see no point. We already recognise the World Cup. Sasquatch t|c 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily to use WP as a primary news source! The super-simple answer is that for most people want to see the appropriate Wikipedia articles/article sections for more details and see how they have changed. In other words, using ITN for precisely what it is intended for. As for "not ALL world cup games are newsworthy" that depends entirely on where you are - each is extremely newsworthy somewhere! In the two countries where the game is played (the USA might be the exception again) especially. Even if Brazil beat Australia - a completely expected result - it will still be the headlines in two (large) countries, not to mention that it will be the biggest game that Australia have ever played, and be remembered by Aussie soccer fans until they die. Newsworthiness is all relative; but there's no doubt that the World Cup is internationally newsworthy. And there's no doubt that there are articles being updated about it. So prima facie there is a case for ITN inclusion. Rather than attempting to summarize a couple of days worth of activity in a paragraph update to ITN, a simple set of appropriately linked scorelines at the bottom is likely to be the most globally balanced, neutral, concise way of covering it. As for "In the news was never meant to be and should never be a sports ticker for any event. It's for all aspects of news", this seems to miss the point. Nobody wants the World Cup to take over ITN despite the fact it is the world's largest news and media story. ITN would still remain the place for all aspects of news. Sticking the rather more "trivial" World Cup in a separate section at the bottom would probably prevent ITN from becoming football-dominated (you are stepping on seriously dangerous territory if you want an update for newsworthy upsets for instance!) TheGrappler 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
By newsworthy I meant to the same effect the opening ceremonies were (should have clarifies). If all it took was it to be a major headline in a country (or two) then we sure as hell should included the Ashes, Rugby World Cup... and dare I say it, the Stanley Cup. The entire argument for including scores is that ALL of them are important enough to be included on ITN. In that case, so are a LOT of other things. And what's to say we don't other separate sections in ITN for presidential elections? Anyways, a ticker would just promote more tickers. Leave ITN as it is. The World Cup will be linked from the Main Page and that's fair enough. Sasquatch t|c 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"If all it took was it to be a major headline in a country (or two) then we sure as hell should included the Ashes, Rugby World Cup... and dare I say it, the Stanley Cup." Correct. The key difference is the notability and duration of the overall tournament. That's what makes the FIFA World Cup sufficiently distinctive that we're even having this discussion now. The next question is how the FIFA World Cup should be covered: it consists of a series of individual games; should those games be summarised on ITN or should we have a generic tagline? And it's when considering this point that the relatively low number of games per day, and the international newsworthiness of the games in at least two countries, that makes the case for the inclusion of individual scores. If the scores were isolated from the main event, then even if they were for matches that were just as covered by the media in two countries, there'd be less chance of an argument about putting them in. "Anyways, a ticker would just promote more tickers." I disagree: what can compare to the World Cup? Except possibly the Summer Olympics (ever so marginally)? And previous practice has been to cover that in the same way. No sensible person would see the inclusion of FIFA World Cup scores as a good argument to cover the Russian ice hockey championship, for instance... TheGrappler 20:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I really do see where you are coming from, and hope I haven't been misrepresenting you. (1) "If you believe that ITN's scope should be broadened": I think it already has been and that the written instructions do not necessarily reflect this. This is a wiki: therefore maybe the rules should change? I'm not talking about being bound by precedents (which indeed may be incorrect) but the way to determine whether they are correct or not isn't to compare them to a particular written version of the rules that these precedents themselves evolved out of. What is important is to have a constructive discussion and try to attempt to build consensus. As for "It must, however, apply to all newsworthy events (not merely the World Cup)": I certainly haven't proposed a "World Cup Exemption". But we do need to think about the way we handle major multinational sporting tournaments. They are certainly different to other types of current events, with a series of individual sub-events (in this case, matches) proceeding to a fixed schedule that lasts several weeks. ITN has to handle such tournaments in a different way to other items: having a subsection at the bottom has been the most workable method found so far. The question is when to insert one. We need to think carefully about that; having said that, if we are ever going to do it, we have to do it for the Summer Olympics and The World Cup. Everything else is on a far lower order of magnitude. (2) Exactly right about dedicated articles - and sufficiency of changes means it's all a matter of degree. "Most of the updates in question are not nearly comprehensive enough" depends what you mean. Individual match reports can be messy, excessive and incredibly difficult to meet NPOV and verifiability standards - the extra raw figures given in the match summaries on the World Cup page seem sufficient to me. They may not seem sufficient to you. (We should not expect big changes in national football team pages - remember that they have often played thousands of international matches, it would be recentism to completely change them based on one game!). It is also true that many ITN items only change by a small amount due to the newsworthy event that brought them to ITN. Again, we need to develop a standard for this, and I fear you are ticking people off by saying, effectively, "WP:NOT therefore I win". It's a question of how to apply WP:NOT, and there may be consensus that there is a sufficient level of detail for individual matches. Remember, they only take up half a line or so each ("Mexico 3-1 Iran" could be placed next to another result) and there are several of them. The World Cup is, at this stage of competition, a many-headed monster of a tournament, lacking central focus, yet the event as a whole is huge. Would it not, therefore, be sensible and reasonable to group all the scores in a bottom subsection, appropriately linked, so we have several links to a whole range of articles/subsections which have changed? And to accept that this may be equivalent to linking to a single article which has changed more substantially, as we would do for a normal news story which has a more central focus? This multi-headedness is a feature of multinational sporting tournaments and is one of the key reasons the Olympics and Commonwealth Games were handled in the way they were. TheGrappler 21:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you wrote above. Indeed, this is a subjective matter. Please understand, however, that while I personally believe that the scores shouldn't be listed on the main page, this isn't something that I feel strongly enough about to be particularly perturbed by their addition. I certainly would have preferred their constant presence to this unfortunate edit war (which makes Wikipedia look quite silly).
The motive behind my argument is not to keep the scores off of the main page, but to refute the claim that my viewpoint (and that of others) can only stem from American ignorance and bias. Your comments, conversely, have been nothing but reasonable. —David Levy 06:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've readded them. I think more people on this talk page want their inclusion than not - they seemed to have been removed in haste, and should be removed only if more people object. Dmn Դմն 21:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From reading above I'd have to disagree, consensus seems to be not to turn ITN into a sports ticker. I have no problems with text entries on major major games (someone advances from a group to the finals or wins some hardware) but a full on ticker is clearly not what we have a consensus for -- Tawker 00:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've also added a link to the world cup article, I think that works better -- Tawker 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that i would prefer that we just put a link to the relevnt page (like now) for major spoting events, thos prevents us become a sports ticker but allows pepole intrested to head over there. Also rember wikipedia is an encyclopedia, wikinews the sister site is specifiically setup for this kind of thing. Benon 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Tawker's solution is a good one, I think. It mentions the event, without reducing the Main Page to a sports ticker service. -Splash - tk 02:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a "In The News" portal?

Wikipedia is not a news site. If you're turning to the front page of an encyclopedia to read the latest news headlines, you're on the wrong site. But current events and background articles about them are of interest to many people, and the In The News section on the main page tries to accommodate this by listing a few major news-events and link to encyclopedic articles about them. But it's very short, so: How about an "In The News" portal? No, not wikinews. Not a portal meant to be a news source or even be very up to date with the latest news. We're still only an encyclopedia. But a portal where we colect short blurbs and links to articles about people and events that are currently in the news.

It could have its "featured article" equivalent which for instance these days could be the FIFA World Cup, an excellent article that give lots of background information about the world cup. Then there could be a "politics" box where we list headlines and links to encyclopedia articles giving background information on current elections, people and politics issues that are currently widely reported on in the media. A sports section would also be appropriate here, these days linking to the articles on, say, the Stanley cup, French open, the 2006 World Cup, and so on. And we could have a recent deaths section. A "did you know" equivalent could contain trivia about current events with links to the articles containing them.

I repeat, this should not be anything like wikinews. We would just include blurbs from and links to good background articles on current and maybe upcoming events. We could put up a blurb on, say, the United States Senate election, 2006 many weeks before the election date, maybe in an "upcoming events" section in the portal. For people who like to get background information on upcoming events early.

Is this a good or bad idea? I know this is not the place to suggest new portals (Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals is), but I thought I'd get comments here first. Shanes 16:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not just use the Sports portal for this? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 18:26
I'd much rather all portals were deleted frankly, I can't stand them. Dmn Դմն 18:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason not to use the Sports portal is that the sports portal should cover sport, in a similar way to how the history portal covers history. Most portals have a small "topic-specific ITN" section but this is a proposal for a more extensive "current events" thing. I really, really like the idea - so long as it's not used a substitute for putting things on the main ITN that do deserve to be there :) TheGrappler 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We have Wikinews and we have Current Events - where would this diverge? --Golbez 19:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't be like wikinews. Wikinews is about writing news reports when they happen and having its main page link to those reports. Like the news site it is. An ITN-portal would offer short blurbs and links to already established articles about topics that are currently in the news and for that reason interests many people. Think of it more like an indepth weekly magazine than a daily news paper. A portal about one would say that "If you read the Wikipedia In the News portal and the indepth articles it links to, you're well prepered to talk about current events in any dinner party." To say it abit snobbish. Maybe "Behind the news" would be a better name. Shanes 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • To illustrate it with an example: If a politician had to take a leave because of an illness, then it's not that fact that people will turn to Wikipedia to read about. They already know that from reading or watching the news. But they would like to learn more about that particular illness. What is the recovery rate, is it lethal, how many suffers from it, and so on. And we would already have an article about it written, and it's here that we beat every news site hands down. Shanes 21:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I can see the point and I think it certainly falls within Wikipedia's remit; "Portal:Behind the news" sounds a little more magazine than encyclopedia though. Not sure quite what to suggest as an alternative... TheGrappler 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see the difference between your proposal and Wikinews. But what would differentiate this from Current Events (or is it meant as some sort of replacement)?--Pharos 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Current events is more of a list of news headlines where every entry has to have a link to an external site where we send the reader for more details. The reader clicks the link, and off they go to CNN or wherever to read the news report. It's usefull for people who want to get todays headlines, but it's really not very different from thousands of news blogs. And the place for this "current" link-list in an encyclopedia is not clear to me. So I don't much care for it, except as a way to get "what happend on that day" entries added timely so a reader in the future can look up a date and see what the world headlines on that date looked like. So, in my opinion, the strength of this "current" link list is for the days when the list isn't current anymore. It's a good enough reason to keep it, but colecting and listing news links is not what I see as Wikipedia's strength. And I think a portal where we focus on linking to wikipedia articles with encyclopeic information on current afairs topics would be more valuable. And it's sort of missing at the moment, except for the ITN on the main page. But it's very short. Shanes 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Have you read this bit further down the page? Carcharoth 23:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think that some sort of reform of Current events to portalize and at the same time make it more ITN-like is what we need. We really shouldn't have our efforts going in too many directions here. Please see Talk:Current events#Should Current events be in the portal namespace?--Pharos 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiding 2006 World Cup results

To ignore the World Cup results, add the following to your User:YOURNAME/monobook.css file, and after saving, press CTRL+F5 to refresh the file:

#worldcup { display: none; }

Uh, if this is something that people need to ignore, it shouldn't be there. Wikinews is the palce for that. A link would be appropriate. pschemp | talk 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Importance of the Football World Cup

I am annoyed to see comments like "...We could also show the Stanley cup results then..". The FIFA World Cup has become the biggest media-event in the world approx. in the last 10 years, based upon the number of people watching it on television; that means there is a huge interest all across the globe. And because it has such a global effect, I don't understand why the Wikipedia does not show direct results on their main page (at least of the most recent game) and I am thus proposing to recognize its importance by including results in the news section at the top-right as it has been done before.

ITN is not a news ticker. Wikinews is much better suited for that. Its fine to have a link to the world cup, but the live scores is not the purpose of wikipedia. pschemp | talk 00:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
No it's not a news ticker, but how many times have we seen ITN being updated for disaster death tolls or election results? As I suggested below, I would recommend a simple coin flip to resolve the issue. --Madchester 05:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Simple question - should we exclude the biggest news story of the day, or not? If so, ditch ITN. If not, include the day's results. Guettarda 05:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The World Cup has an entry, despite the fact that we ordinarily reserve such treatment for athletic championship competitions that have concluded. —David Levy 06:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand, I remember seeing results of the Olympics in the news section (on the Wikipedia main page). The Olympics are falsely regarded as being the biggest sport event binding the highest amount of people, that is not true, it is the football world cup that binds even more people than the Olympics (as I stated before its the biggest media event on our planet). So why are you ignoring its significance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 07:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Why are you asking a loaded question? I don't dispute the claim that the World Cup is the most popular athletic competition on Earth. I dispute the belief that Wikipedia is a news site, as well as the contention that we're permanently bound by the "precedent" set during the Olympics (which I believe was based upon poor decisions). —David Levy 08:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I dispute the belief that Wikipedia is a news site - whether you dispute it or not there is an ITN section and these games are in the news, with the BBC carrying LIVE reports on the front page. Jooler 08:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1. ITN is not a compilation of the biggest news headlines. It's supposed to highlight articles with major updates corresponding to prominent current events. While the World Cup certainly satisfies the latter criterion, I don't believe that the pertinent articles have been sufficiently updated. I'd expected detailed accounts of the matches (similar to what was added to the Super Bowl XL article before and during its ITN listing). With few exceptions, I've seen little more than updated scores/standings. (Some of the national football team articles that were linked from the main page didn't even contain past-tense references to the games!)
2. The BBC comparison (which I realize you didn't originate) is patently invalid. Wikipedia is an entirely different type of website. —David Levy 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup status on ITN - Coin flip dispute resolution

These daily reversions for and against the World Cup scores are getting rather ridiculous. The fact is both sides have valid arguments, and you can't really say that one side is more "correct" than one another. Personally I don't like how editors are taking sides when these edit wars are not conducive to Wikipedia's daily operations.

I would suggest a simple coin flip to decide whether the scores stay or not. It's a rather standard procedure for dispute resolution. This is probably the best way to resolve the matter once and for all. --Madchester 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My major problem with the coin flipping is that it does not set any precedent. There are going to be a lot of fairly pee-d off people if the next Olympics or similar has results featured on the main page, and rightly so. Nonetheless, I see that the scores have been removed, so I assume the 'coin' has already been flipped. This is a mistake, and I frankly doubt if it is a true and fair reflection of consensus. Nevertheless, so it goes- so long as this rule is fairly applied the next time. Badgerpatrol 01:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read through all the discussions here... But I think scores are a bit excessive, and instead suggest adding something to ITN when teams advance to the next round or are eliminated. For the final game, scores would be okay with me, though. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, Portal:Association_football isn't being adequately maintained with its "News and events". This would be the perfect place to go into more detail with scores and all. Anyone willing to update the portal? -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Oldelpaso 09:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Check French, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, and Dutch versions of Wikipedia. Colipon+(T) 04:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the German, Japanese, Polish, Danish... You need me to go on? A lot of wikis don't even HAVE in the news type sections. Sasquatch t|c 04:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you go for a coin flip, then you should flip a coin to decide if we have ITN or not. There's no reason to exclude the biggest news story of the day which can be justified in terms of NPOV. Guettarda 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How many times must it be noted that ITN is not a mere collection of the biggest news stories? —David Levy 06:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, how can one justify including results from the French Open while leaving out the World Cup results? By that token, they shouldn't be there either. Guettarda 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The tournaments have ENDED. The champions have been determined. We didn't list the scores of the individual matches, nor did we add an entry when the French Open began. We've done the latter for the World Cup, and even that isn't good enough? —David Levy 06:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I really recommend a coin flip because we're rather deadlocked with this issue. I don't see any consensus on the horizon. There's no point letting it drag any longer, because people will be making similar arguments for/against the scores over the next 4 weeks. --Madchester 05:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but that seems to me like the worst solution imaginable. Frankly, I'd prefer that we simply restore the scores.
Has anyone considered asking Jimbo what he thinks? —David Levy 06:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
About sports? I am vaguely aware of the existence of a general field of human activity known as 'sports'. I am also under the impression that there are "scores" which indicate which of two or more teams or players is winning. Beyond that, I am sadly lacking in either knowledge or opinion. :) Some may read this as saying "Jimbo doesn't care about sports, so we have to keep it off the front page"... others may read this as saying "Jimbo says that his knowledge is 'sadly lacking', so we have to put it on the front page to help him." But the wise will understand that Jimbo doesn't get to decide what is on the front page, and will instead charitably discuss the merits quietly and in peace amongst themselves, without his help, and with a minimum of edit warring. :)--Jimbo Wales 19:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Besides, the Dutch, Italian, Japanese, etc. do not get to say "let's ask Jimbo". This is a syndrome of the English Wikipedia that we should get over. jacoplane 19:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes they do. They just have to translate the question first. --Golbez 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
And of course, Jimbo obviously is more intelligent than a coin. Consequently, he was smart enough to recuse himself from this matter. :) —David Levy 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup ITN Vote

See Talk:Main Page#World Cup ITN Vote

Football portal

It has been proposed that this portal be created to list all news and current events related to the World Cup. This portal would then be linked in ITN. Feel free to contribute to this new portal. See Wikipedia:Portal and Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines to get started. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 09:13

  • Nevermind. Portal:Association football already exists, and people have been updating it with the latest World Cup results. I've added a link to that portal in ITN, and think it's a fair compromise. Now the readers can easily find all the latest scores. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 16:26
Compromise? The voting at the moment is going against you 12:2 and you want to compromise. Jooler 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There's always the possibility of ending a vote early by doing the right thing and going back to discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 17:16
Yes, because voting is evil (a sentiment that you conveniently ignored). The validity of this "vote" is very much in doubt, so you're in no position to cite a one-person majority (as of this post) as consensus. —David Levy 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Bizarre. The majority of people want to see the scores but a few individuals, dont and keep removing them. But voting is evil, so those who don't win. What do you mean one person majority?: 12-2 is ten persons. Jooler 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Again... Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the straw poll is non-binding, non-final. The only proper course of action is discussion that leads to consensus. Now are you against the portal link, or not, and why? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 17:16
The current "oppose" count is 3. As noted above, you're excluding the eight people who have responded that "voting is evil" (some of whom have also expressed opposition to the inclusion of the scores). 3 + 8 = 11.
But of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Some of us (on both sides) are attempting to conduct a rational discussion (and maybe even arrive at a mutually acceptable compromise), but you'd prefer an all-or-nothing, winner-take-all vote. —David Levy 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That's poor logic, and anyway Preston has voted in both. Sorry, but if the majority of people want to see it then you will just have to accept it. violet/riga (t) 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1. How is my logic poor?
2. I didn't notice that Preston opined twice. With your response (which, like most of the other "support" votes, is based entirely upon how "big" the news story is), you now have a three-person majority. But again, Wikipedia is not a democracy. As a veteran sysop, you're well aware of that fact. You're also familiar enough with the ITN criteria to know that being a "big" news story doesn't automatically qualify something for inclusion.
3.I've repeatedly indicated that I'm more than willing, as a good will gesture, to accept the scores' presence on the main page (despite my personal belief that they don't belong there). I do, however, believe that Brian's solution is vastly superior. —David Levy 17:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. People choosing the "Voting is evil" are not expressing an opinion about their inclusion, but speaking out against voting. Their vote is therefore not related and should be discounted.
  2. I didn't want to add any extra details about my views. I believe that the relevant ITN criteria are all met and that the scores should appear. Their inclusion would also draw attention to the articles which would clearly be benficial.
  3. I'm glad that you'll accept what the majority (plurality, if you really want to include the null votes) of people want. I have to disagree with the portal solution, though I'm glad that an alternative was offered.
violet/riga (t) 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1. If you actually bother to read the comments (instead of merely counting the votes), you'll see that some of the "Voting is evil" respondents have conveyed direct opposition to the scores' inclusion. But yes, the main point is to express the belief that the entire "yea or nay" vote (regardless of the supposed outcome) is invalid. This isn't remotely tantamount to a neutral stance, and it's absurd to suggest that such responses should be "discounted."
2. I obviously disagree about the criteria having been met, given the fact that some of the articles in question weren't even updated to include information about the games' outcomes. Brian's solution, however, draws attention to the association football portal, which has been properly updated.
3. My willingness to accept the scores' presence has nothing to do with any majority, plurality or vote. As I've stated from the beginning, it's based upon my belief that it isn't such a big deal to occasionally bend the rules if doing so will please a significant number of people (and perhaps foster a modicum of good will within the community). I now believe, however, that Brian's method accomplishes this goal in a more logical manner. —David Levy 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Those comments (I did read them) are not neutral, no, but are not oppose votes and should not be lumped with them as a "majority".
  2. They all seem to be updated to me.
  3. I'm simply saying that it wouldn't be right for a small minority to edit war. Not that I'm saying you would.
violet/riga (t) 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1. I'm not lumping the "oppose" and "voting is evil" responses together as a majority (which they obviously aren't). My point is that the "support" votes constitute a majority by a considerably smaller margin than what Jooler claimed. Additionally, it's unfair to disregard the "voting is evil" sentiment, which calls into question the validity of the entire process.
2. I don't doubt that the articles have been updated to include the match outcomes by now, but some of them had not been when they were linked from ITN. With one exception, the national football team articles that had been updated included no more than three sentences (usually fewer) about the pertinent game.
3. It isn't good for anyone to edit war. Any consistent setup would be preferable to the back-and-forth changes that have occurred (which made Wikipedia look rather silly). —David Levy 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Count the support vs. oppose votes, not including the evil votes. Count the evil votes only if you want to consider not following the majority, in which case the number of support/oppose votes outweigh the evil votes.
  2. No more information needs to be added, imo.
violet/riga (t) 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1.Wikipedia disputes aren't settled by counting votes and "following the majority." If a significant sentiment exists, we don't dismiss it because a few more people feel differently. That's why I expressed my willingness to accommodate the World Cup fans days ago (before any "vote" had been held).
2. It's been claimed that each World Cup match is comparable in magnitude to the Super Bowl of American football, if not more important. Why, then, is it unreasonable to expect the same type of detailed account that was written before and during the placement of Super Bowl XL on the main page? —David Levy 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. No, but they clearly indicate a majority view which cannot be ignored. No, we are not majority rule, but neither are we ruled by minorities.
  2. Any number of reasons. The number of consequtive matches; the type of fan; the speed of the game; the style of the game; the non-English-speaking teams; the location of people watching the matches. And then some.
violet/riga (t) 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1. I'm not proposing that anyone's viewpoint be ignored. I'm saying that both sides should be willing to discuss the matter (and hopefully agree upon a compromise of some sort). If you look beyond the lopsided "support"/"oppose" tally, you'll see that this is the underlying sentiment behind the claim that "voting is evil" (a substantial segment of the response).
2. Numerous major news stories fail to appear on the main page because no one has written an article or updated an existing article to a great enough extent. Apart from the fact that we've already bent the rules by giving the 2006 FIFA World Cup article an automatic month-long spot (without regard for the quality/quantity of updates), how is this situation any different? (Please note that "this is the World Cup" is not an adequate response, IMO.) —David Levy 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So even if we include the evil votes, it's still 17 to 10 right now. violet/riga (t) 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And again, you refuse to do anything but count the votes.
Of the "support" respondents, how many have cited a rationale other than something along the lines of "This is the world cup, and it's the biggest event on the planet, so it's crazy not to have it up there!"?
It's clear that there's no hope of building a consensus for either extreme, so why not compromise? In my opinion, the current setup is better for World Cup fans than the alternative. Instead of seeing raw scores for the last few games, they're directed to a source of detailed information about all of the matches (in addition to the main article). In fact, I've seen a couple of World Cup fans request that we not spoil the outcomes on the main page (because they record the games and watch them later).
So now, everyone has easy access to their desired information, and we're promoting the nice portal. What's the problem? My only relevant observation is that it is perceived by some as a slight on the part of those football-hating Americans. —David Levy 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you were under the impression that this was an accurate cross-section of the community...[1]David Levy 01:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary of this discussion

  • Violetriga: There's a vote.
  • David Levy: Yes, but there are various compromises, and people who haven't opposed have made points other than voting.
  • Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
  • David Levy: Majority does not rule Wikipedia.
  • Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
  • David Levy: WP:NOT a democracy.
  • Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
  • David Levy: There is, but the validity of the vote is questionable.
  • Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
  • David Levy: Other major events have only had their finals listed/reported.
  • Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
  • David Levy: The relevant articles haven't been updated in any meaningful fashion, and that's an ITN requirement.
  • Violetriga: Yebbut there's a vote.
  • David Levy: Majority does not rule Wikipedia.
  • Violetriga: Ah, so you'll agree to the outcome of the vote, then.

-Splash - tk 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to argue anything else. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was pretty crazy. In the end, though, WP:NOT still wins out, because it says straw polls are "not to be treated as binding votes." And let's not forget that Jooler left a notice on the Football WikiProject's talk page alerting all of them to the fact that a vote of importance to them was being conducted. The results should not be trusted as an accurate cross-section of the community. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 02:28

Knockout stage

According to 2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Knockout_stages, teams start being eliminated on June 24. The results of these games would be acceptable to me on ITN; with these, there more of a story line (x team beats y team, 2-1, advancing to the Quarter finals of the 2006 FIFA World Cup) that fits with headline style used for all the other news stories. That's what we did with the Winter Olympics (just selected a couple highlights, and wrote them in that style). Until then, I don't think we need all the group match scores on the main page, and the link to the portal is good. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Teams start being eliminated on June 24" - No, it's far earlier than that. Which is why these group stage games are so important - some sides have virtually been knocked out already (it's fair to say that Serbia and Montenegro are in dire straits for instance, their match against the Netherlands is likely to determine who finishes 2nd). Further, many teams will be eliminated after two group games (though they will play out their 3rd, they may not be able to progress regardless of result). There's also an issue about neutrality - at least a score list is both comprehensive and neutral. Picking out highlights is very hard. And depending on which country you are in, of course, completely different things may be highlights anyway! Trinidad and Tobago's 0-0 draw with Sweden was a footballing sensation (especially in T&T), Poland's surprise loss was also quite a major story worldwide (imagine what it was like in Poland). So we already have things that are highlightable, the problem is finding a neutral way to do it. Scores are at least concise, comprehensive and neutral for the time being. Once the semi-finals happen, headline style will be far easier. TheGrappler 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Some people don't follow the World Cup as closely. For us, headline-style highlights that say things like x team is eliminated, or y team advances... would be more helpful than straight scores. At this point, you say there are too many games to pick out highlights. That's why rather than picking out highlights for the main page, we can list all highlights with background context in the portal. You can explain if a particular score means that a team was knocked out. Or mention how a particular player had an outstanding game, scoring the winning goal, etc. Scores without context are not as suitable for ITN, and break the long-used style. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed framework for moving the World Cup dispute forward

Given the way that this page has descended into ping-pong reiterations of old arguments, we need to find a better way to make progress. It's starting to resemble a vote... and we have one of them already (Talk:Main Page/2006 World Cup poll)! In fact it is starting to resemble an extremely bad-tempered one. I am going to make a couple of suggestions about things we need to stop discussing because they really aren't getting anywhere, and a number of discussion points that are all alive in the threads above (often all over the place and with endless repeating), with summaries of the more common positions that I could identify and a summary of reasons given or advantages and disadvantages noted. Effectively this is an effort to summarise and refactor the increasingly messy discussion above. If people wish to add new sections they can do so, space has been left after the discussion points for people to post. On the other hand, people are quite at libery to ignore this entire posting!

Let's quit discussing/scoring points off things already established

  • Anybody who reads this page really ought to be able to grasp the magnitude of the World Cup. (If they can't, they can come over and visit me and get exposed to the blanket radio/TV/newspaper/conversational coverage of the World Cup, and the horrific sight of hordes of men wearing football shirts that are far too tight for them...). The extent to which the magnitude of the World Cup should influence the inclusion of scores is one of the key points in this debate.
  • A degree of coverage that seems unusually low will give some readers an impression of North American bias (I think this is a fair comment, largely undisputed; in particular, long-standing readers may well compare this to previous coverage of the Olympic Games - which may or may not have been a mistake, but those not involved in editing Wikipedia won't be aware of the debate about this matter)
    • Most of the suspicion has been directed toward Americans (not Canadians), and the fact that the Commonwealth Games (in which the U.S. doesn't even participate) was featured in this manner should serve as a mitigating factor (when it comes to people's perception). —David Levy 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of that, some other Wikipedias (for European languages) include this coverage on their main pages while others do not.
  • There's no point accusing editors of failing to understand the magnitude of the World Cup. This risks coming across as an anti-American bias, or even personal attacks. Any U.S. or Canadian editor who reads this page through will by now appreciate the fact it is taken by the majority of the world as a Big Deal.
  • We all need to quit calling each other idiots or ignorant. This includes calling people ignorant of the rules, which are themselves rather unclear and seem to diverge from past practice that was widely accepted at the time.

Establishing the status quo

A good idea in many such edit wars is to revert to a long-standing status quo. Unfortunately there are three different viewpoints about the status quo:

  • The status quo is that it is standard to include distinct subsections at the bottom of ITN for the most important multinational sporting events. These precedents include the Summer and Winter Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. There is no doubt that the World Cup is as big a tournament as these. Normally we don't have a subsection, but that is because these events are by their nature rather rare (else they wouldn't be seen as so important).
  • The status quo is not to include sporting results in their own subsection. We usually don't have such a subsection. The previous uses of such a subsection were incorrect and should not be repeated.
  • The status quo is that it is not standard to have distinct subsections for sporting events and that this may be in breach of policies or guidelines. However it is also part of the status to recognise that the most important sporting events may justify deviations from these standards.

Is this a fair summary of the current situation? Do we actually want to maintain the status quo, or do we expect it to change as a result of this discussion? TheGrappler 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How would individual scores correspond to current ITN procedures?

  • Perfectly: they come complete with several updated articles, and are newsworthy in at least two countries. A list of scores is more concise and more clearly NPOV than attempting to elaborate on recent games (The degree of updating is disputed and variable, however.)
  • Very badly: if the match doesn't deserve an article of its own, it shouldn't be on ITN. (Though note that an article of its own isn't required for most ITN items, merely that there should be an article which has been updated.)
    • I haven't seen anyone argue that a match requires a dedicated article to qualify for ITN. We just want to see a reasonably detailed update to an article. If an addition consists entirely of the score itself (or no more than a few sentences), ITN isn't serving its intended purpose. —David Levy 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Imperfectly but we ought to stretch the rules: in comparison to the entire World Cup, early individual matches are not especially important, and it is also true that articles may not be updated all that much. However, they form part of a larger tournament that continues to be newsworthy, and the entry in ITN for that item ought to be kept updated. A collection of individual links to (relatively minor) updated articles, held together by the FIFA World Cup theme (and collectively, significantly updated), is as jusitifiable as a normal ITN article that has to be significantly updated for inclusion. This is in fact a feature of the structure of the World Cup (at this stage it is many-headed) and indeed for other major multinational sporting tournaments; this helps to explain previous precedents involving the Olympics.
  • Imperfectly so we ought to exclude the item: no individual game should be listed and linked unless it was especially important, possibly to the extent that it gets its own article (e.g. an incredible upset, a final or semi-final which is given its own article, a game noteworthy for non-football reasons)

Is this a fair representation of the major viewpoints? Are any of these arguments especially strong or weak? TheGrappler 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there other options? What are their advantages and disadvantages?

  • One possibility is linking to an appropriate portal for updates. Advantages: less space taken. Promotes other areas of the site. Readers are only one click away from the information they want. Helps to make clear that Wikipedia (and ITN especially) is not a news or sports site. Fans who have recorded the games won't see spoilers that they weren't expecting to find on a page that doesn't ordinarily list sports scores. Disadvantages: readers wishing to see changes in the relevant WP articles (which is what ITN is for) are now two clicks away. Fails to recognise the distinctive and unusual nature and importance of the World Cup. Liable to sit unchanged for weeks at the bottom of ITN. TheGrappler 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the relevant updates (not that there have been many beyond numerical statistics) have been made to the 2006 FIFA World Cup article (to which we still link). —David Levy 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to add your own...

What can we conclude from the (ongoing) straw poll?

  • There are strong opinions both ways.
  • Very many people do not believe a poll is a viable way of finding a solution but others disagree.
  • So far the majority of voters have been in favour of inclusion, but the majority of those who disagree with the straw poll method also seem to be opposed to including the scores.

How can the straw poll be used in formulating consensus in this case? Should we go with the majority? How can we take account of the opinions of the "votes are evil" voters, who are following a well-established WP practice and have views on the matter they wish to be heard? TheGrappler 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Considering that one of the users left a notice at WikiProject Football alerting them that this poll is occurring, I don't think the poll can be trusted as an accurate cross-section of the community. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 02:34

Is there an underlying principle rather than a "World Cup Exemption"?

Having an underlying principle (e.g. including the world's two "largest" multinational sporting events, the Summer Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, or even having a wider rule that might also bring in the Winter Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Rugby/Cricket World Cup) may prevent descent into listing live feeds for regional team competitions in minor sports, etc. But could common sense do the job instead? Is the FIFA World Cup so exceptional that it should clearly be treated differently? How do we decide for other events - case by case or following a general rule? While the Summer Olympics precedent seems to have considerable support (as well as some strenuous opposition), the Winter Olympic and Commonwealth Games descisions seem to be more commonly regarded as mistakes. How can we decide? Do we need a general principle to be formulated before including World Cup scores or should we wait until nerves are less frayed and the dust has settled? TheGrappler 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


It's a disgrace really, this whole argument. I remember when George Best died, and there was a similar argument about including his death in the ITN section, with various people saying it wasn't notable or he was only a sportsman and removing the fact from ITN. Well when some 100000 people turned out on a rainy day at his funeral, it was a bit late wasn't it. I'm not even sure if even that got a mention. Jooler 22:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dismissing opposing viewpoints as disgraceful and demonstrating zero willingness to compromise is not the best way to build consensus. —David Levy 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Nor is this comment. Dmn Դմն 23:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Which comment? —David Levy 00:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying is a disgrace is the way that a certain minority opinion from a certain part of the world, seems to dismiss the importance of certain things, because it's not part of their culture. Jooler 08:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You're attacking a straw man. We aren't dismissing the importance of the World Cup. We're disputing the notion that it justifies significant deviation from ITN's normal format. —David Levy 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
But anyway even is there was a consensus you will ignore it. and claim voting is evil. Jooler 08:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, this "voting" (especially after you deliberately contaminated the pool of participants) is an obstacle to consensus-building. Please read that page, and perhaps you'll realize that the definition of "consensus" is not "whatever the most people show up and say." —David Levy 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohh and BTW the BBC website is now showing the results of ALL three of todays games on the main front page. Jooler 22:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The BBC also has current weather on their main page... We're not BBC... we're not anything like BBC... and we've never let BBC set precedents for our main page. Sasquatch t|c 22:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am bringing up the BBC because it was brought up by others who say in effect, that even the BBC didn't have the result, and went on about how much of the BBC front page was devoted to the World Cup. Well in fact they do show the results and even have live scores on the front page. Jooler 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned previously, the original comparison was invalid. Wikipedia is not a news site, so comparing it to one is silly. —David Levy 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with scores on their own, is they lack context and break the style of "In the news". If we put them on the main page, they should be in the same highlight style as the other news and how the Olympics highlights were. "X beat Y, 3-2, with x player scoring the winning goal", or "X beat Y, 1-0, qualifying for the Round of 16". I would suggest the two most recent games listed in this format, with a link to the Portal and to 2006 FIFA World Cup. (see User:Kmf164/Sandbox). But rather than all scores during the Group match, I'd prefer just seeing only results that involve a team advancing/qualifying for the next round, or eliminated. When we get to the Knockout round, then each game results in a team advancing and the other eliminated. At that point, results for each game are appropriate. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
One important reason for linking to the portal is that, until yesterday, its news section wasn't properly updated. It's important to bring attention to the portals, and attract people to help maintain it. Portals are intended to be "main pages" for the topic area, and bring together the best articles, current events, etc. in one place. Portal:Olympics just started up at the time of the last Olympics, but for the next Olympics it will surely be linked on the main page. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yea, this is probably the best thing we could do for the portal. And it'll give a nice place for all the football fans to call their own and go crazy on. Sasquatch t|c 00:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is nowhere near as disgraceful as your action in alerting WikiProject Football that this poll was occurring. Any chance of getting an arguably-accurate cross-section of the community is lost. Whether that was your intent, or you were simply informing people who you thought the vote would be important to, I don't know, but as I said, the results cannot be trusted as a microcosm of the community. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 02:35
Unlike the microcosm of people from a certain part of the world that couldn't give two figs about the World Cup that have been removing the scores. Jooler 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you seek to portray this as a "United States versus the world" battle (just as you always do). —David Levy 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with alerting people who might have an interest in the subject to the fact that there is a vote going on? It's common practice. There's nothing to stop you doing the opposite. Jooler 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If this were a dispute in which "people who might have an interest in the subject" were likely to hold differing viewpoints, you'd be correct. For example, if we were attempting to determine the best way to configure a coin-related article, it would be entirely appropriate to inform the members of WikiProject Numismatics. The problem is that you deliberately alerted a group of people who are likely to overwhelmingly favor a particular outcome. Meanwhile, there's no "football-haters" project to alert (not that I would). —David Levy 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW just out of curiosity are the United States men's national soccer team's games being shown live on any of the main networks? Not ESPN, I mean those that would normally show the Superbowl or whatever. Jooler 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a no then is is? you see that's the difference. Today BBC1, that's the main BBC channel, showed live, all three games played today and England weren't even playing and nor were any teams in their group. Together BBC1 and ITV1 will be showing every single game. Jooler 21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
So what? Are there enough interesting, well-written, updated articles to sustain interest among general encyclopedia readers (as opposed to football fans) for a whole month? That is what "In the news" is for. It is not there to provide a news service or results service. If you can find 20 articles about the World Cup or related matters, then you might be able to write 20 items and queue them for linking from an ITN item over the remaining days of the tournament. Otherwise the link will just be a dead item that looks the same every day. Football fans might use it, but for others it will just be a wasted link that they will ignore every day. Carcharoth 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean like these 2006 FIFA World Cup articles and these FIFA World Cup 2006 players and these FIFA World Cup 2006 referees and this List of 2006 FIFA World Cup officials Jooler 22:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. It would be good to see a regular (maybe not every day) link to one of those articles, plus the overall "World Cup 2006" article, based on some bit of news. eg. Cisse breaking his leg. A referee being selected to referee the final. A player being sent home in disgrace. Wayne Rooney recovering from his broken metatarsal. Outbreaks of rioting (hopefully not). There are any number of creative ways to get educational and encyclopedic World Cup-related news item up there, instead of just a rather boring "results" item, though mixing it up with results (eg. qualification) by teams that have good articles would seem OK. Have a look at Wikipedia:How the Current events page works for tips on how to write an informative news item that links to articles in an engaging way. For example here and here. Though do consider the fact that there will be other news as well, and having a football realated item every day for a month might be overkill. If something like this was proposed, and news items were carefully selected each day, I'd support it. Or we could just all watch the football. :-) Carcharoth 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
"sustain interest among general encyclopedia readers (as opposed to football fans)"
The tournament is watched by millions and millions of people you wouldn't ever catch watching the game at any other time - you can't call them "football fans" and disassociate them from "general encylopedia readers". violet/riga (t) 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia turn into a football magazine for the month that the World Cup is on? I am merely pointing out that despite many people watching football who don't at other times, there are also many people who don't want to see a general encyclopedia broadcasting football results for a whole month. Perspective and balance. Deep breaths and the occasional snippet of football news leading to an interesting article. Does that sound unreasonable? Carcharoth 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem with having the results on the main page - that's all I'm saying. Wikipedia should get into the spirit of the thing - it would benefit more from having them there than not. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of the games have been carried by ABC, which is one of the main U.S. television networks (and broadcaster of this year's Super Bowl). According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Nielsen Ratings are up significantly over those of 2002. For example, Sunday's match between Mexico and Iran was watched by 42% more people than a 2002 Sunday match between England and Sweden. It also aired on Univision (the nation's largest Spanish-language television network and fifth largest network overall), where it set a new record for the highest viewership of any Spanish-language sports broadcast in U.S. history. —David Levy 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Silly football discussion

Huh? I wander over here and find pages and pages and pages of discussion about whether stuff pertaining to the FIFA World Cup finals should be in the 'In The News' template on the Main Page? The whole discussion is silly, if rather illuminating. I don't use Wikipedia to follow the football, though I do indeed follow the results of the matches and watch the matches. I also suspect that the billions of people watching the matches don't bother to come to Wikipedia to find the results, and those that do should learn an important lesson: Wikipedia doesn't grind to a halt or shift its focus because of a football tournament. Also, despite the (correct) protestations against the "its a US-centric" thing, it is rather funny to see some (probably US) editors trip up in their discussions and show how little they know about football. I'd never heard of the Stanley Cup, and I don't propose to try and discuss it and show my ignorance of it. It does make me wonder though just how many other biases are slipping through and colouring the Main Page. Nearly every day, when glancing at the 'In The News' template, there is some obscure thing that may or may not pique my interest. What I have learnt though, is that appearing on ITN is not a reliable indicator of the newsworthiness of a topic, or its relevance to a global audience. It seems to me, to rather showcase diversity, which is a good thing IMO. There does seem, though, to be a perpetual mis-understanding of ITN as a ticker-type headline style news outlet. People need to remember that the Main Page showcases and link to good or relevant articles, rather than being a news page. I would never rely on Wikipedia for up-to-date news - it is never up-to-date enough and I wouldn't expect it to be. Carcharoth 11:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear that the section on the Main Page is for Articles In The News. It is a way of highlighting articles on topics that are in the news. It is not simply a list of whatever is in the daily news headlines.
FWIW, I think we should have a link to the article on the relevant sporting event (2004 Summer Olympics, 2006 FIFA World Cup) while it is under way, as we seem to do at present. We do not need rolling news coverage on the Main Page. We do not need a mention on the Main Page for every game, competition, medal winner, etc. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of "In the News"

It seems that the "Football World Cup" results dispute (and other disputes) have arisen from the way people seem to use "In the News" for several functions and in several ways:

  • To browse daily and follow links to articles that sound interesting and are topical (in the news). (intended use)
  • Following up some news that was read elsewhere, and wanting to find a Wikipedia article for background on the topic. (incorrect use - there are better ways to find such articles and ITN cannot hope to cover all major headlines)
  • To keep up-to-date with the latest news from around the world (incorrect use - there are news websites that are better at this sort of thing)

The trouble is that the more people see things like World Cup scores, the more they will come back and expect the ITN section to give them news. My opinion is that we must avoid creating unrealistic expectations, though this may already be too late.

How do other people use ITN? I use it to browse, but I must admit that I do catch myself using it for the other two purposes as well. The difference is that I don't (usually) get upset when something I thought might be there isn't there. I go and look somewhere else. How do other people react to the balance and content of ITN, and what are your expectations of what you think you will see there throughout the day? Carcharoth 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps now would be a good time to mention again the idea I mooted a few weeks back... might a slight name change to something like Topics in the news better underscore for the casual reader and submitter that this is first and foremost about identifying encyclopedia topics rather than identifying important stories? "In the news" without any intial noun is a fairly broadly-used title for any sort of collection of newsbits in a variety of media (off the top of my head I can think of Craig Kilborn's parallel usage of it and a few others). A tweak might cast a bit more emphasis onto the idea that these are links to updated articles, not a newsticker in and of itself The Tom 07:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is probably the best place to discuss such name changes. I like your suggestion. There are several other suggestions, but unfortunately the discussion is currently fragmented over several different locations: Talk:Main Page#Edit break; Talk:Main Page/2006 World Cup poll#Support (search for "Behind the news"); and some old suggestions at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_71#ITN_rename?. I'll add a link to this discussion to the one at the poll. Carcharoth 09:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else up for Topics in the news? The Tom 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. You may need to advertise this idea more widely. Try the Main Page talk? Carcharoth 10:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You know, I think I've come around to supporting some kind of change along these lines. Either "Topics in the news" or "Topical updates" or something similar would explain the purpose of it a lot better.--Pharos 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Chronological balance in "In the News"

Something else about "In the News" is that there needs to be a recognition that deciding to feature the articles on an ongoing event (whether open ended or fixed), such as an election, a sporting festival, a disaster, or whatever, could potentially skew the balance and reduce the opportunity for other articles to be featured. And it should be clear that the purpose of ITN is primarily to feature topical articles, NOT to provide news coverage (yes, those are two different things I've described there - it is the article being featured in ITN, not the news event). So it should be recognised that events that are "in the news" can be brief news events, or longer-lasting news events, and maybe the longer events should be treated differently (a weekly ITN?), restricting ITN to "daily" headlines. In any case, featuring the article relating to that news event for longer than a couple of days should, IMO, be avoided. The problem seems to be that people arrive at ITN during a month-long event and expect the article on that event to be featured every day on ITN. It should be made clear that ITN cannot feature every news headline (sometimes the article doesn't exist). Conversely, people also get annoyed when an obscure article, whose topic makes headlines for a day or two, lingers on ITN for 4-5 days, giving it unjustified exposure. So I propose that as a general rule of thumb any single article about any single event should only be featured on ITN for 2 days, no longer. Of course, if new articles are written about the same event, or something new happens, the new articles or updated article would be eligible for featuring on ITN as normal.

Does this, and the idea for a weekly (or even monthly and yearly) ITN, sound reasonable? Carcharoth 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the idea of a "weekly ITN" etc. is fairly covered by Current events, particularly Template:Current events on the right of that page. As someone who has worked a lot on ITN, I can say that the idea of a 2-day time limit is absolutely unrealistic– there just isn't such a supply of decent updated articles.--Pharos 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
So what is the difference between Current events and "In the news"? It seems to me that there is a reasonable supply of material at Current events that could be used in "In the news". If stuff being linked to from Current events is not decently written and updated, then that is a problem. If not, then why not use the entries in "In the news"? And anyway, Current events is not what I meant by a weekly ITN. I meant a similar selection of around 5-10 news items from the past week, all of course linking to well-written, interesting and updated articles. It would be more the highlights of the week's ITNs, rather than a longer version of ITN.
And if there is not a supply of decent updated articles, that needs to be addressed. It is silly when an obscure item remains on "In the news" for several days, or when a month-long event is linked to every day for lack of anything else to link to. Carcharoth 21:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe, to help overcome shortages of ITN material, have the weekend days being highlights of the past week's ITN items? Then start over again on Monday. The lag would help material build up, and would allow time for well-written articles to develop. Sometimes there is a rush to get some big headline on ITN, when it would be better to appeal for the article to be updated carefully (rather than quickly) and then add it to ITN the next day. Carcharoth 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the vast majority of articles linked to from items on Current events are not decently written and updated. If an item meets those qualifications, it will almost certainly get to ITN. ITN basically fuctions as a best-of Current events.--Pharos 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the clarification about the nature of the two pages. Carcharoth 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the chief benefit for listing articles on ITN is that they receive tremendous traffic from users, and thus improve greatly in short periods of time (eg. Battle of N'Djamena in April). Harro5 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Albanian flag

As the news about Albania is no longer the top headline, someone should replace the picture. Rain74 11:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We welcome your suggestions on what to replace it with. --Golbez 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Spelling Error

"Albania (flag pictured) signs a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, a first step toward joining the European Union."

I believe 'stabilisation' is correctly spelled 'stabilization' in Modern US English. However, I am aware of languages utilizing the Latin alphabet outside of the US sometimes using an 's' in places where a 'z' or 'c' is used in Modern US English, such as 'practise'. As this is a treaty origination from the EU, there might be nothing wrong; however since this is a news article in the English wikipedia, which takes precidence, UK or US English?

I just wanted to point that out as a possible error. Thank you. The Linguist 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No error, the Euros use "s". Since the bit is about Europe, we err towards the British usage. --Golbez 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
In general, in answer to your question 'which takes precidence, UK or US English', if the news story involves an area which uses english, IMO their styles should be use. Hence for articles about the EU, UK, Irish and Maltese English spellings should be used. Dmn Դմն 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup grammar

I'm not expressing any opinion on what (if any) mention of the World Cup should be in ITN, but can we change the mention that is there so that it is grammatically correct? It should read: The 2006 FIFA World Cup continues in Germany. (details). "2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany continues" is a bad sentence.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Would say it's out-and-out gramatically incorrect, but awkwardly sounding it was. Fixed. The Tom 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Old news

How long are we keeping stories in the template? For instance, the marine reserve was established 3 days ago. is there a policy of when to take down the stories? I would rather see more smaller less important storie then old large important ones. --Flying Canuck 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • There is no set policy– just to try to keep the elements on the Main Page in some sort of balance, and to add new items relatively frequently. We've been keeping items on longer since some folks decided to switch Did you know.. and On this day... around (a decision I'm not entirely happy with), as now there's more room we have to fill. If by supporting "smaller and less important" items you mean non-political ones, then I agree, and suggest you can help by updating more science and culture articles when there are major developments in those spheres.--Pharos 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Geographical context

Is it possible for ITN items to make the geographical context clearer? The current top two items are:

  • The Miami Heat win their first National Basketball Association championship, defeating the Dallas Mavericks.
  • In the National Hockey League, the Carolina Hurricanes defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the 2006 Stanley Cup.

In both cases, the only clue as to where these sports events are taking place is the names. Not everyone will know where Dallas, Miami, Carolina and Edmonton are. It would be much better if the terms "USA" and "North America" (for the Stanley Cup) were used. This should even apply for the expensive painting item that gives the geographical context as "New York", though in this case more of an argument can be made for people being more likely to know where New York is. Carcharoth 09:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, why do American sports results seem to get such exhaustive coverage? The criteria for ITN state quite clearly that only events of "international importance, or at least interest" should be included, and furthermore criterion 1 implies that sporting news should be "rare"; it's hard to see how the NBA fits with that, particularly given that national sporting leagues outside the USA are typically excluded (there was no mention of the FA Cup final this year, nor of Juventus winning the Serie A title). So to have not just one but two North American results at the same time seems rather excessive, and certainly does not reflect the global outlook Wikipedia is supposed to prize. — Haeleth Talk 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, after reading the debate and discussion above regarding putting the World Cup on ITN, I think the inclusion of the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League was to make a point... but that is my opinion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm still hoping that some admin will actually make the changes I suggested, and before the items drop off the page. The changes I suggested can be seen at Talk:Main Page#Geographical context in "In the news". Carcharoth 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

US is not the default

Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church is the first woman elected primate in the Anglican Communion. This should read 'of the U.S. Episcopal Church' - many nations have Episcopal Churches, Bishop Jefferts is not their primate also. --Aoratos 09:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

done. -- Zanimum 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Khamis al-Obeidi

The caption is ambiguous - it could imply that the photo to the right is that of al-Obeidi, when it is clearly not. One who was unfamiliar with Saddam Hussein could make the mistake of thinking it is Al-Obeidi, and it needs to be changed.

Red Cross confusion

I know this is confusing, and our own article (International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) doesn't help much, but the Israeli and Palestinian national societies were not admitted to the International Committee of the Red Cross as is currently indicated. The committee is its own organization that doesn't have national members. The two societies were admitted to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and recognized as part of the movement generally, by the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (another ICRC, confusing I know) which represents the movement as a whole and includes representatives from the Federation member societies as well as the Committee. Ddye 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed, but that's one long link. The Tom 18:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling error

You have listed on this page that the third city to gain potential to win the 2014 olympic bid is Pyeongchang. The city, even though it is spelled with a lowercase "c" here, the [ olympic website] lists it as PyeongChang (uppercase "C", no space) (see here). I would change it, but the page is locked. JARED(t)  12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

US/PRC Navy story

The article doesn't actually say that this is the biggest exercise overall since Vietnam, or at least it doesn't to my reading. The ITN entry by contrast does- which is correct? To be honest, per my comment on the candidates page, I question whether this entry really should be up there at all anyway. Badgerpatrol 03:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Arcelor and Mittal"

Why aren't both company names boldfaced? Are they not on equal footing somehow? --Merovingian {T C @} 11:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Buffett story

The figure on the Warren Buffett story on the In the News section is incorrect. BBC, ABC, and Fortune (the original reporter of the news) ALL put the figure at $37bn (USD). May some admin please change this. ~ clearthought 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I would like to know the source used to report that Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed to allow a referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh on its status. I couldnt find anything though. Baku87 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the highlighted article, and also according to Current events, the reference is 09:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont think this is a reliable source, its a Armenian site and offcourse they would want to report something like this. This isnt reported on any Azeri or any international news either. I think it should be removed as being unreliable news. Baku87 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially denies these rumors, see [2]. I suggest we remove it, since it is not a relaible news. Grandmaster 18:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I second this. I don't have an opinion on the bias of the cited news source, but if the only citation for this is a rather obscure web site and no major news outlets have picked it up and one of the parties to the supposed agreement is explicitly denying it, then I think that this shouldn't be on the front page. --Jfruh (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan-Armenia story needs to come down

This story is entirely based on a single mention on a rather obscure website. No major news outlet has picked it up, and the Azeri government has explicitly said that it isn't true. [3] [4]. It's increasingly embarassing the longer it stays up. Where can we contact people who have the ability to change the main age? --Jfruh (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think the whole thing was some sort of misunderstanding at least. See [5].--Pharos 06:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Armenian, Azeri Leaders ‘Agreed To Karabakh Referendum’." The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have accepted the idea of enabling the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to decide their status in a referendum but disagree on other, less significant issues, the Armenian Foreign Ministry said late Monday. Agreed, and then... And if Golbez was here I'm sure he'd ask for the pertinent [referendum-specific] article. Btw, Pharos, nicely done with turning Operation Summer Rain into major incursion. Better late than never. El_C 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, they're both actually from the same news source (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) interviewing the same person. The article I linked to was a direct follow-up to the article you're referencing. It appears they may have reached some sort of agreement on "principles", but the Azeri government is currently denying it, so it's probably not appropriate for ITN as of yet.--Pharos 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, and the second article I linked to is the followup to that. El_C 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see, sorry I missed that. We haven't updated OSCE Minsk Group lately, though; I guess that'll be the core later.--Pharos 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pending switch to Portal:Current events

A proposal to establish Portal:Current events and have it replace Current events has been accepted after a couple of discussions (Talk:Current_events#Should Current events be in the portal namespace? and Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Portal:Current_events). One of the few changes introduced with the switch of namespaces is the introduction of {{in the news}} as a Highlight section of the new portal. This switch could happen as soon as July 1 00:00 UTC (see Talk:Current events#Switch to Portal:Current events for a thread about this timing), but once it does happen, the "More current events" link becomes superfluous, at least within the portal. I wasn't going to worry about this right away, but I wanted to mention it since at some point soon it's worth changing. It appears that there are two simple ways to deal with this

  1. use a version of {{in the news}} that excludes "WikinewsRecent deathsMore current events..."
  2. Since the offending text is wrapped with a "noprint", exclude it using styles.

Any recommendations? Thanks—Kayaker 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

I note that this hasn't been responded to here yet by anyone, and something has been chewing at me that probably should be aired. While nobody would dispute that In the news... and Current events are quite tightly bound together, by transcluding ITN as "highlights" on the new Portal I'm fearful of opening up more general confusion, simply because ITN isn't, strictly speaking, a "top stories" subset of the broader Current Events page. There are some fairly crucial distinctions in the regulations used on each side of the divide: current events doesn't emphatically need a substantially-updated article, while ITN does. Current events has inline citations, while ITN does not. Overall balance in terms of regional and topical content is a reasonably influential concern for most ITN updaters, but it doesn't figure so much on broader CE. We already have ongoing headaches in which the submission criteria for ITN are unfortunately not made explicitly clear enough to many would-be submitters, and muddling the matter by implying that ITN is just particularly important excerpts of the broader CE can't help us in that problem. Additionally, because all ITN updates are supposed to be on CE anyway, the highlights box inevitably will duplicate text, or perhaps worse, inexactly duplicate text, which appears a few lines down on the main CE page. The Tom 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ITunes Law

The so-called "iTunes Law", which Apple has called "state-sponsored piracy", is approved by the French Parliament (coat of arms pictured). This has nothing to do with "state-sponsored piracy". This part of the law was removed a long time ago.

Ken Lay

I was a little unsure about whether to add the Ken Lay death, since we normally don't list deaths unless they're of world leaders (although we have had deaths of other icons), but the fact that the entry also informs us that his conviction has been abated (ie, it's as if he was never indicted or convicted) seems like it should be enough. After all, we did have an entry when he was convicted, so why not when his conviction was voided? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 19:42

I did make a change. It said that he is now "legally innocent". "Innocent" is not a legal term despite what people usually think. It's guilty or not guilty. --Woohookitty(meow) 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this story should be news, however, it seems this justification for including it has backed into a "fact" regarding abatement that is not yet decided. It may be the result, and the general rule, but wait for the prosecutors and the courts to weigh in on this. Castellanet 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Grammar: "Ken Lay dies" would be better as "Ken Lay has died" Thatcher131 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Russian plane crash

(regarding the previous edit by Delirium), we do have an article about the plane crash, 9_July_2006_Irkutsk_S7_Airlines_crash. Could an admin who sees this readd it with reference to the article please? Thanks.--Kchase02 T 07:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

World Cup

Completely ignoring any procedure I added the world cup.... I haven't looked at the guidelines in quite some time... I suppose that makes me a failure.... in any cause. Pardon and I hope any procedural mistake I made can be fixed. gren グレン 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. gren グレン 21:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

FFS it's not the Jules Rimet Trophy that was retired in 1970. Lord save us from fools. Jooler 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Be civil. --Golbez 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The error on the FIFA World Cup Trophy page which led to this error on ITN is now fixed. Thank you, Joturner. -- PFHLai 22:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Return to the project page "In the news/Archive 7".