Wikipedia talk:In the news

Active discussions

Add British Academy Television Awards to ITNREdit

It seems rather odd to have one nation's television awards in the shape of the Emmys, and not to include others. Can I suggest British Academy Television Awards are added to the regular list. It would help avoid Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#British Academy TV awards where nationalistic nonsense over "our television is better than anyone else's" is the reaction of some. There is much ignorance in that section on what the British Academy Television Awards actually is: it is not just British productions, but co-productions, etc too (which is why some programmes are up for awards at both the Emmys and BATAs too). I fail to see any significant difference between the two, outside the silly nationalistic one at any rate. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per Kingsif. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose In support of my rationale at the ITN/C nomination that the Emmys are more important than their British counterparts, I offer as evidence the nominees for Best Drama at last year's awards:
Emmys- Game of Thrones, The Americans, The Crown, The Handmaid's Tale, Stranger Things, This is Us, Westworld
BAFTA TV- Killing Eve, Bodyguard, Informer, Save Me
If you can't already tell, clicking through to the Wikipedia articles or researching statistics on these shows should give you a sense of the gaps in popularity and significance. Do the same for any category in any year and I think you will find a similar pattern. The reality is, for better or worse, the epicenter of English-language TV is very skewed towards Hollywood. Additionally, as I argued in the ITN/C nom, television simply has less long-term cachet than film, so I find it reasonable to only have one TV awards ceremony at ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the list of the nominations is supposed to prove, but it's fairly clear that all those programmes are broadcast internationally. The rather blinkered "US is best on this" is just too tiresome to take seriously, particularly as BAFTA TV include co-productions, and many of the programmes in both sets of nominations are crewed and acted by professionals from both Britain and the US, as well as further afield (The Crown, for example, listed as an Emmy nom if a UK-US production, GoT was partly produced and filmed in N Ireland, etc). That such a narrow view is being used to block what would only be one ITN entry a year is a bit silly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s to demonstrate that the most popular and well-known television shows in the Anglosphere (and perhaps the world) are typically found at the Emmys and not the BAFTA TV Awards. I don’t care which country is “best” as that’s too subjective to seriously discuss. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
SO that fact that UK-US co-productions are nominated at both the Emmys and BAFTA TV means we should list only the US? Neither BAFTA TV nor Emmy (nor, for that matter Oscars and BAFTA film) take any account of "most popular and well-known" as part of their criteria: they look for the best. Popular or well-known ≠ best. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I don’t understand how your first sentence relates to my argument. And it is not the job of ITN to decide what TV shows are best. We can only assess significance and extent of global news coverage, as per WP:ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
My comment should be fairly clear, given the context of what you say. But, there again, your postings are self-contradictory, so I'm not entirely sure what your !vote is based on. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I’m still not clear on what you meant. I apologize for any contradictions or ambiguities in my replies. I’d be happy to try and clarify anything I wrote that was confusing, as I did not intend to mislead. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Well worth reading what Kingsif writes below. Basically every single objection of yours is neatly dismissed, leaving a simple "US TV is better than UK TV" opinion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support British television is recognized around the world as much as US television; just because it may not be watched as highly on first broadcast does not make it less significant. As we recognize the BAFTA film awards there's no reason not to already recognize the TV ones as well, as long as the article has the same quality update as we expect for award ceremonies (more than just of awards, some details on the ceremonies). --Masem (t) 20:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. As for "the epicenter of English-language TV is very skewed towards Hollywood", I think the BBC might have something to say about that.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support "popular" programmes don't equate to "quality" programmes. BAFTA selects the latter, and there's no shame in that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. And I'm going to add something below, but can we at the very least acknowledge that the BAFTA Film awards are in ITN/R, thus WP considers BAFTA as an awarding body to be notable - some of the "arguments" at the ITN/C were just slating BAFTA. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I would just be careful that we don't say all BAFTA awards are notable for ITNR just yet. For example, while I know I would speak for the video games project that the British Academy Games Awards are one of the industry's top awards, we here at ITNC have generally not recognized VGs yet because broadly we don't have an award that has the same long-term implications as the BAFTAs in film/TV, Emmys, or Oscars. --Masem (t) 22:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Further comments by Kingsif

The 'examples' listed above by Bzweebl (sorry for calling you out, it's for reference) are being used inaccurately. First, the nomination schedules are different, so it's hard to compare, but just looking at Chernobyl's sweep at last year's Emmys and this year's BAFTAs suggests that it would be more accurate to judge the ceremonies with such a gap - which also covers all the US-UK co-productions, the dominant force in TV nowadays, that air in the UK later than in the US. For this matter, I'll point out that Game of Thrones was nominated for a BAFTA this year, showing that it qualifies, but not in a major category (maybe all the BAFTA juries just didn't like it, maybe British TV has a lot to offer that the US audience by default don't know about) and so was The Crown (which it has for the past three years, natch). Equally, Killing Eve took more noms at the Emmys this year than the BAFTAs.

Then the matter of popularity and significance is brought up. OK, shows not aired in the US will have a much lower viewership - which is perceived as being less popular - by default. The UK is much smaller. They're also going to covered in the US press and likely Wikipedia much less, because if they're not shown nobody is going to write about them and we know the disparity in entertainment articles still exists on WP. Given that the UK has television channels dedicated to foreign programming (e.g. Walter) on satellite and not just the internet, the BAFTAs are arguably more international because they have that pool to choose from. Both ceremonies are theoretically restricted to their national productions, having broadened over the years and now basically nominating the same things. This also brings up the concept of exceptionalism, the idea that even though there will be TV shows not broadcast in one of the two countries (and vice versa), it is the ones not shown in the US that are by default second rated, an irrational suggestion. Especially since a lot of US TV shows are UK co-productions that maybe don't get a look in at the BAFTAs because there are some exclusively British productions that are just better. Apparently the idea that UK-only shows get lots of noms because they deserve them hasn't been considered, instead written off as 'well I haven't heard of it so it can't be good' or, crucially, 'they only got a nom because US shows couldn't', which isn't even true. And the users making that argument are plucking it from their own imaginations, since I don't think any of them are on the BAFTA juries. We're not here to decide if the selection process is solid, but if the ceremony is notable.

On that note, I have to reiterate from the ITN/C that US outlets were covering the BAFTAs. Deadline reported on the results before the BBC, i.e. the channel that broadcasted the ceremony, did. Variety was live posting the whole event. Jeff Goldblum, Billy Porter, and Matthew McConaughey presented awards - yeah, they're going to show up for a minor clip show in another country any day, right? And this is not to touch on the internationalist of the British TV industry. While the biggest of US productions obviously reach many corners of the world, British TV does the same but also takes its smaller shows - across kids, daytime, soaps, news, and comedy - too. The BAFTA TV ceremony itself is a major event on the industry calendar, more reputable than the NTV's (the UK's National Television Awards, which are truly exclusive and focus way too much on soaps and variety), and usually just as glamorous and well-attended as the Emmys. This year, it still had a physical presence, with many of the presenters being together at Television Studio (good idea? who knows), while the Emmys will be entirely virtual. I'm not commenting on the difference, because we're not the organizers, either. Really, both the Emmys and BAFTA TV awards are equally notable as the complementary ceremonies for the dual TV giants. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • These are very convincing arguments. I have changed my !vote accordingly. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional ITNR adds should follow approval at ITNC when possible, as the visibility is greater and thus represents a more accurate read of consensus. Given there is a current nom open for this event (leaning support), we should follow the result there. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe the American and British entertainment production environments are both quite significant. There is no possible way to objectively declare which, if either, produces higher quality programming. Both distribute globally and find healthy audiences on foreign shores. The distinction between the Emmy and BAFTA to me is that the Emmy awards those programs aired in the US, where the BAFTA is concerned with programs produced in the UK. Given the prominence of streaming services and their thirst for content, quality British programming will find its way to the American airwaves (so to speak) and be eligible for Emmys. Quality American programming will never be eligible for the BAFTAs (yes, yes, joint productions aside). This definitively means the BAFTAs are drawing from a smaller pool of potential contenders and would thus potentially exclude more quality programming. Consider recent top BAFTA winners like Peaky Blinders, The End of the F***ing World and Patrick Melrose, which were eligible for but not even nominated for Emmys. Top winner Killing Eve was nominated, but lost to a program ineligible for BAFTA. - - - If we are to argue in favor of promoting British voters, I would beg that the same could be applied around the world. No country has the best TV viewers. If we are to argue in defence of those British programs that don't make it across the pond, what then of the many other domestic award shows? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You make some good points, but haven't addressed one key thing: if I can write another paragraph to lay it out fully? Besides the intricacies of the eligibility - which I feel ultimately comes down to personal opinions on if some national shows are as good as other national shows, and here our opinions evidently differ, I won't debate further on that matter - we (Wikipedia) are here to determine if the (recurrence of) the ceremony/awards merely happening is notable. Nominees and winners will change every year, but the event to be posted won't. So, whatever your views (well thought out as they are, shown above) on the quality of nominees, we can objectively judge how the various ceremonies are treated both in their own country and abroad. The BAFTA TV awards and the Emmys are in their own league. The best comparative for other award shows I've personally seen, like in Spain and France (I could only comment on search results for others, which I'm sure you can find yourself), is the UK's National Television Awards (mentioned above). That is, they're hyped enough for a week that you remember it exists, most people don't care enough to watch but might be interested in the winners, it focuses on popularity, and is not covered abroad. Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Valid points. What was underlying my thoughts and unsaid is that all of these awards are somewhat trite and hopelessly subjective affairs, such that we should post as few of them as possible. Given the two, I prefer the Emmys. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Match the Emmys. I don't have strong opinions on whether either of them should be on ITNR, but if one is, so should the other be. They're equally big deals in English-language television. The problem with these awards has been getting good enough prose article updates, not just tables of winners. Modest Genius talk 10:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose is this for real? The item failed to gain consensus at ITN/C and now here in the shadows it's being deemed noteworthy enough for automatic inclusion in perpetuity? I don't think so. We've a "tradition" (right or wrong) of expecting a topic to pass ITN/C at least once before turning up here. Try again next year please. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson:, @Amakuru:, @Ktin: who opposed the nom at ITN/C on notability grounds to have a voice here too --LaserLegs (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Er, you can't do that - it's textbook WP:CANVASSING. P-K3 (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Easily passes Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification targeted at users who had opposed the exact same topic at ITN/C just a few weeks before. I didn't notify the supporters because they were here already. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Strange. There are 5 supports here, and there were 9 at the ITN/C nom. And one of the supports here opposed the ITN/C: that's 5 more users you could have pinged. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Albertaont, John M Wolfson, SchroCat, 331dot, and those who left comments at the ITN/C who weren't invited and haven't already commented here. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Cool, thanks Kingsif. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the ping Kingsif! Albertaont (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for countering the blatant canvassing, Kingsif. As to comments like "is this for real": yes, of course it is. Countering knee-jerk bias is a positive step, particularly when it's based on fallacies like "the item failed to gain consensus at ITN/C" - deeply untrue: there was a consensus to post, but it was stale before it developed fully. If the open unthinking bias of "US only" is the norm, (and it obviously is) then such fallacies are to be expected in its defence, I guess. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Blatant canvassing? Oh come on, maybe WP:AGF a little? Seriously there was a wall of support here with no rep from the people who had opposed the unsuccessful nom at ITN/C so I pinged them. --LaserLegs (talk)
Seriously @SchroCat: please describe the methodology you used to determine that my Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification was canvassing for vote stacking. It would be the second time in as many days taht someone who knows nothing about me has claimed the ability to determine my motives and intentions. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
When someone pings everyone from one side of a discussion, it is de facto canvassing. Your explanation here that you actually wanted to ping everyone from one side of the discussion is doubling down on it. Please don’t ping me to this again; given the knee-jerk opinions of “US only”, and the use of open fallacies to reinforce the cultural bias, it’s not an area I wish to participate in any further. - SchroCat (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Cool so you agree you have no idea what my intentions or motivations were, and then doubled down on whining about "us-bias". Thanks for the blatant WP:ABF --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs. This awards ceremony simply isn't of the same prestige or importance as the others mentioned - it focuses quite a lot on British TV, and it's fairly obvious that we shouldn't include awards ceremonies from every single country around the world, that would be bloat. The argument was presented that given that we are presenting the BAFTAs (british film awards) and the Emmys (US TV awards), we logically have to also present the British version of TV awards. That logic doesn't follow, since the BATAs are of less importance than both the BAFTAs and the Emmys. The item failed to garner consensus for running this year, and it would be very wrong to therefore slip it in for next year by the back door, by declaring it ITN/R.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Just to add to the above point, I can see where the idea of "Matching the Emmys" comes from, and as a Brit myself I am usually completely onboard with attempts to combat US-centricism on the Wiki. However, it should be based on facts and evidence, not just an WP:ILIKEIT approach. Does anyone have any evidence that these awards are even remotely comparable to the Emmys in global notability? Just to look at one example, the page views of our articles for the 2019 Emmys vs the 2019 BAFTA TV awards: [1]. Discounting spikes, on most average days the Emmys page gets between 1000 and 1200 views, while the BAFTA TV awards page usually gets somewhere between 80 and 110 views. That's an entire order of magnitude difference, and far more than can be explained just by considering the relative populations of the two countries. I don't have any figures for global TV audiences, but I would predict something similar. The Emmys are viewed worldwide, while the BAFTA TVs are mainly a British thing. Would be interested to see any counter-evidence to this, in terms of concrete facts and figures. And to counter Kingsif's reply to Bzweebl, "shows not aired in the US will have a much lower viewership" - but that's the point. It doesn't have a global reach.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you missed the point to that comment, Amakuru, which was that the US has a much larger population than the UK, and so the most-viewed shows in each country will have very disparate stats. 1 million is a good TV audience figure in the UK, in the US it is poor. (The equivalent 'good' in the US is about 10 million.) In June 2020 the peak TV viewership for a single broadcast in the UK was for football, at 4.1 million ([2]), while for the week of June 8 (the only one I could find) the US peak was 9.4 million ([3]): in a week the LA Times said had "steep viewership decline" because of no sports. The disparity is real and big. The same applies to the Wikipedia pages that you're using as a metric for popularity: more Americans = more people who can watch the Emmys = more WP Emmy pageviews. That's why I pulled on international media - the exact evidence that these awards are even remotely comparable to the Emmys in global notability that your comment suggests doesn't exist is something discussed above, so it looks like you selectively ignored it. But, yes, in the US it gets rather comparable coverage with the Emmys. Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I've now read the middle part of the comment, about global viewership of the awards ceremonies. Neither are usually available to watch outside of their respective broadcast nation. This year, because the Emmys are completely virtual, it's reported they will be broadcast online. But the BAFTAs didn't do that, so there's no available comparison. We'll have to take the media coverage of the awards at face value. Kingsif (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that this proposal is absurd when the most recent nomination failed to get posted. This demonstrates that scrutiny is needed and it shouldn't go through on the nod. In any case, I don't see why this award should get special treatment when it is so clearly promotional in nature. It represents the vested interests of old media which is losing ground to the new. I myself am watching YouTube increasingly because the content on the old broadcasting networks is stale and samey. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It failed as stale, with a greater than 2:1 support:oppose ratio. It was just not being attended to. The rest of your reason is literally just "I don't like TV". Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Close as not added as not posted this year. Supporters can try again next year. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not significant to consider adding as a recurring news item (recurring) on the homepage. That said, an unrelated exploratory effort should be undertaken to see if there are any new media awards that we have not represented, and consider inclusion if notable. This is building on one of the users' comment from upstream. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and in particular GreatCaesarsGhost. I don't think that the fact that BATA has co-British-productions makes up for the very British and non-international nature of these awards. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 22:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Which of GCG's comments? Because he ended up conceding something along the lines of "TV isn't that notable so I think we should pick BAFTAs or Emmys, and I prefer the Emmys"... Kingsif (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment this appears to be dead in the water. Somehow, without any logic at all, the banal "Emmys" is a shoo-in for ITNR, while the BAFTAs don't cut it. If we needed an example of systemic bias, this is it. Close this down someone, it's really not a good look for Wikipedia to continually promote this bias. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    As much as I wish things were otherwise, the reality is that the US is a bigger country than we are, and its culture and influence has a global reach which far exceeds the difference in population. Despite the loss of political influence since the Suez Crisis, Britain still punches above its weight in many respects, but I don't see the BAFTA TV awards as one of them. It isn't obvious to me that they are of similar importance to the Emmys.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given the Americentric bias of Western Pop Culture (especially with television), it's natural that American ceremonies in that field take priority over those of other countries (barring, of course, international stuff like Eurovision). If we really must post other countries' awards, it should be those of India if they have them, with Bollywood and all. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Funny that many international major roles and movies are actually fulfilled by UK individuals, even pretending to be yanks. Like good ol' Hugh Laurie who most yanks didn't even realise was English. And most of the cast of 24. It's all about the yanks but yet it's not. Funny. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't realize Dominic West is English until I read he fooled the producers of The Wire during his audition. You Brits really excel at acting like us...--LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Point of information: Bollywood isn't just TV, and it does have two awards in ITN/R. As a personal response, I find American ceremonies in that field take priority over those of other countries to be objectionable, I'm sure you've read why above already ;) Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Different point, which is that TV seems to be dying, take a look at ratings for these things year-on-year. Instead of adding another one to counteract the Emmy's, I would say in a few years, just drop that as well. Its natural that as media evolves, things get dropped from wiki as much as gets added in. I know this doesn't count as a reliable source, but I'm assuming very few friends even here watch Emmy's anymore, or just less and less. Albertaont (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with you. And, I think that is roughly what Andrew is saying as well, and I briefly picked up on, in my comment. We should really be investing our efforts in identifying what that next generation events are. E.g. Are these the virtual gaming championships? Are these the short form video awards etc etc. The problem is some of our attributions of importance still flows from the Cinema / TV age - which is alright, but, the world is for sure evolving. Cheers and Good luck. Ktin (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Stats for Al's point: [4] With the exception of a massive spike in 2013 (ironically an unpopular ceremony), viewership of the Emmys has declined over the last 10 years. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yup. Seems like the Oscars are having the same issue as well. [5]. I would venture a guess to say that the chart for broadcast / network TV viewership would be similar as well. More reasons for us to accelerate our search for new-media events. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • While viewership may be declining, it's still not actually low. It's going to be a long time before any new media event gets anything like those viewing figures - and decades until it would reach the same level of notability. So to @Albertaont and Ktin: because entertainment is such a big part of most people's lives it would be remiss to not include appropriate events at ITN/R, and while some may prefer listing e.g. the most-viewed show and film every year or audience awards, there are no entertainment events bigger than the Academy and British Academy's ceremonies for TV and film - and certainly none that try to be as quality-focused to establish true acclaim and excellence in the arts. I.e. it's not right to exclude the arts, and the majors are the ones to 'start with' - this is the only major not ITN/R. Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Decades until it would reach the same level of notability" ... That's precisely the notion that I want us to challenge. When we have not identified the disruptors, it is hard to say decades. What if that disruption has already occurred, and its just that we are oblivious to it. E.g. Take eGames - What if some of the gaming events are more "notable" than let's say the Ashes (using this as an example, only because this page has that name quoted), and we are oblivious to it because our sense for notability flows down from the TV / Newspaper world and we have taken that as-is to the online world. But, anyways, I think I am digressing from this specific add / removal discussion. Cheers and Good luck. Ktin (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Want to beat TV-centric English-language news coverage bias? This won't fly, but post some Korean drama awards shows. Those shows routinely get bigger audiences than British or Indian TV(!) worldwide. Korean wave is a real thing in the 2010s (and 2020) but ITN is stuck in bullshit US vs UK drama to even recognize that. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Korea Drama Awards - this uncited article for a ceremony that regularly doesn't present half of its awards? Or another one of the 15 TV awards ceremonies in South Korea? Oversaturation isn't a good look in awards. Anyone with Netflix knows there's a lot of Korean TV, but it's mostly soapy (even The Good Doctor) and overhyped (random example: The Producers) and producing infinite sequel series. There's a reason the Premios Platinos have a better rep than the TVyNovela awards. Korea has (at least) 8 national award ceremonies for TV, and another 7 made up of networks ranking their own shows: that is self-aggrandizing. No apparent notability in these award ceremonies, which is an ITN requirement (and one of the main ITN/R focuses). After US and UK, you're looking at Spanish TV and Nordic Noir in terms of impact, quality, etc. Kingsif (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Meh. Korean TV has a bigger audience in 2020 than Spanish, Belgian, Slovakian or Belizean TV combined. But yes, their awards culture is different from the West. Who knew? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The TV audience is kind of irrelevant. It's about the award ceremony being notable, and while TV audience is one metric, a bigger one is the impact and prestige, right? That's what gets it in the news, that's what makes the ceremony as its own event notable. There's nothing wrong with award ceremonies being different: the BAFTAs don't have commercials and have only one advertising partner, while advertising is really an integral part of the Emmys. It's that the set-up of the Korean award shows just makes them by default have no impact or prestige even on their own TV network. They're so evidently unimportant. If anything, that's more argument to add the BAFTAs: they demonstrate renown like the Emmys where other TV cultures just haven't mastered it. Kingsif (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Given that this is, I do not see the need to necessarily focus on awards or ceremonies that do not have routine coverage in the non-English media from an ITN standpoint; in terms of having a standalone article, absolutely, let's have them as long as we can source them and we should not shy away from them, but readers here coming to the front page are come from places where English is a principle language and thus where we can presume that the news is coming to them in English in the primary or a major secondary format. Having main page ITN items on events that are just simply not covered by any English source at all is tricky to include, much less as a recurring event (exceptions made for RDs but because those are "easy" to pass). So I think trying to argue "but we don't cover these Korean awards so why should we cover the British ones" is not a great argument here. To stress, we do cover non-English events that get routine coverage in English press like the Indian Premier League, La Liga, the Berlin Int'l Film Festival, and so on, and this is not to limit what can be done in mainspace because we can make articles that only use foreign language sources. But ITN we can be a bit more selective to what is going to be of interest to English-comprehending readers. --Masem (t) 17:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, most audiences of Korean dramas (who aren't Korean) consume the shows with English subtitles... or English dubbing on cellphones. You'd need to understand English to watch K-dramas. K-dramas are campy and are mostly for women, but could argue its audience is far bigger from outside its homeland than from within (sorry North Koreans you can't watch). And its audiences are required to understand (and read very fast in some cases) English, just like American and British ones.
I guess the point here is if one is making the argument that U.S. TV is big then UK TV is second-biggest but with quite a far distance so if we're posting the Emmys that nobody cares about, we'd post about the TV BAFTAs as well... that's not readily apparent at least in 2020. One could argue British cinema, literature and music are big globally, that's why you can argue for posting the movie BAFTAs, whatever book awards UK does and the Brit Awards, but for the TV BAFTAs, it's a stretch. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
While audience size can play a role, for ITN its still about the coverage, and again, as, what it gets in English sources for featuring on the main page ITN. Maybe the Korean TV shows draw a billion people when you factor in those that watch with subs but if narely a drop is mentioned in English RSes, its not really news for the ITN main page. (This is basically why we don't simply use popularity, viewership, or similar counts as a sign of notability, because that doesn't always mean good sourcing follows). --Masem (t) 18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that, but no one's making this argument after seeing boatloads upon boatloads of wall-to-wall coverage on The Boat Race watched by billions of people.... which I incidentally didn't see on English language sources for the TV BAFTAs. Kingsif is actually right on Korean awards shows. They probably didn't copy the post-WWII awards shows in the West because maybe they were too busy killing each other. Again, different culture from what Caucasians are used to. Even pan-Asian cultural events are not that widely followed, probably because Asian countries hate each other for millennia. Well, we can still content ourselves with late breaking European election coverage in ITN. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We need fewer recurring items, not more, so this would be a move in the wrong direction; I also don't believe this event is of such compelling significance that it needs to be on this list. Neutralitytalk 16:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Anything to keep ITN from turning into a doom and gloom ticker. -- Calidum 15:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to add, from Kingsif (talk · contribs) in the section below, "the arts are really important in everyday life, TV will always be of interest and in the news, this prevents the whole 'but TV isn't a disaster I don't care' discussion every year and lets ITN/C discuss quality if it gets nommed." -- Calidum 16:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – ITN has slowed to a crawl. Per Kingsif and Calidum, let's give more non-sport nominations a chance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I earlier said that my vote was conditional on the outcome at INTC. While that was not posted, I feel this was a an "administrative stale" and had sufficient support. In light of other arguments made here, and the failed removal of the Emmys, I now believe ITN is (marginally) better off including this than omitting it. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove Emmys from ITNREdit

Given the number of comments (in the thread about including BAFTA TV) that TV awards are only of lightweight relevance, overtaken by other forms of awards (for gaming, etc), there seems no justifiable basis for only including the awards of one country, despite other countries having larger audiences, or other ceremonies nominating/awarding to the same programmes. An overt US bias is the only reason I have seen to include Emmys at all. I propose these should be deleted from the ‘recurring’ list. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support removal as nominator. - SchroCat (talk)
  • Oppose Given that Emmys also recognize streaming outlets (Netflix/Hulu), they have found a way to make themselves relevant to modern programming. Given this is, American and British television have the largest impact on our readers of any other national television media, and Emmys are globally recognized, so it makes no sense to eliminate them. --Masem (t) 13:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Ditto the BAFTAs, but the bias still determines we should only post the US awards, regardless of any other arguments. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Which is why I think the logic in the BAFTA discussion is crazy. It would be one thing if we had 5-6 different English-based TV award shows to pick from, but with only really two, there's no reason to discriminate between the Emmys and BAFTA (and there's zero reason to not cover television awards , the logic against that makes no sense). --Masem (t) 14:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
        • It makes sense when viewed from the perspective of cultural (US) bias. We either acknowledge there is more than one country producing television programmes by having more than one awards ITN, or we show none. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
          • The other way to see it, and this is what I was trying to get at later in the BAFTA discussion, is that as the ITN at, we focus on English-speaking specific news, we are not require to be as "global" as our main space pages should be. When it comes to television, that pretty much means that yes US television will be heavily favored but for good reason, because that's pretty much the dominant television in the English-speaking world. I'm also 100% for the BAFTAs as I fully agree British TV has just as much importance to the English-speaking world. --Masem (t) 15:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support no real relevance, and highly biased. Let it take its chances at ITNC. Where I believe it has failed at least once recently because no-one is interested in updating it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We need more content, not less. The tit-for-tat mindset is ruining ITN. (I'm guilty of it too, but seriously, it is.) -- Calidum 15:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If there's a dictionary definition of a bad faith nomination. This is it. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    Not at all, and not the first time either. It's been adequately demonstrated that for the most part no-one is particularly interested in updating the article, and its singular existence at ITNR is the dictionary definition of systemic bias. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • LOL of course it is. Main BAFTA proponent in ITN/C and ITNR, both having the nominations rejected, the latter pretty soundly, then nominates for removal a similar item from another country. Textbook case of a bad faith nomination, yes, but probably nomination is probably justifiable as we have to do this annual discussion of removing the widely-covered Emmys (but nobody cares enough to update) here. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • LOL of course probably what it is probably what??? Seriously though, this proposal stands no chance because of the systemic bias in play, this hasn't been posted five times in the last decade, no-one gives a damn about it yet it'll remain forever ITNR because the yanks grossly outnumber the rest of us, and for some odd reason they all believe "their TV shows are better" or some other misguided nonsense. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
        Shove the accusation of bad faith where the sun doesn’t shine. The comments in above thread show many people think TV awards of declining value. That’s the basis for this thread, so don’t accuse me of bad faith. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
noise reduction. This is an active discussion of a proposal made in good faith. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • The discussion said it was declining, but not to the point that it has to be removed from ITNR. If this was misrepresentation of what was discussed, I don't know what is.
        • LOL bias. Cry me a Thames River. Boating klaxon!!!! Howard the Duck (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Close this discussion. Britishers' crying of bias are unfounded. We have The Boat Race in ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    Pathetic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    That's true. This discussion is as pathetic as TRM opposed posting the 2014 US midterm election. Imagine, this is the same guy pushing for the TV BAFTAs to be posted every year yet he opposed posting a legislative election of the most powerful country on earth. If we need someone crying about bias, it's not you. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What an obnoxious series of posts on what was a well-intentioned thread (clearly explained and based on the comments from the thread above). Howard the duck: stop trolling. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • If you think this is trolling on a textbook case of a bad faith nom, report me to an appropriate drama board then. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have less time for the dramah boards than I do idiots making accusations about things they don’t understand. Don’t accuse me of bad faith when it’s obvious you haven't got a clue about what your on about. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    Person who made bad faith nom denies making bad faith nom. Ticks all of the boxes. LOL admins you guys want to perpetuate this? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see "combating" "systemic bias" at the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN. If you want to post more non-sports entertainment (I do) then get more non-sports entertainment articles up to a standard to post on the main page. We've twice agreed to keep the Bundesliga in ITN/R despite it never once actually going through ITN/C or getting posted. Not really sure how this nom helps our readers. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    Interesting you bring quality up, as half the last ten Emmys have failed to be posted because of their lack of quality. There's a lot of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS going on here (Boat Race, as usual, Bundesliga etc) and no real tangible reasoning behind why the Emmys gets an indefinite free pass here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    And college basketball. You still haven't told me how this nom helps our readers. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    It is of no value to provide a biased view of the world of television with some warped impression we give our readers that somehow the Emmys are more "important" than any other TV awards. It is also of no value to continually claim this should be ITNR when it has failed to be posted as often as it has been because no-one is interested in updating it. So, back to the main event, let's reduce the dependency on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and explain to us all why the Emmys has an indefinite free pass at ITNR. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    For Ref: 2019 posted, 2018 not posted due to lack of update (and I did start an ITNR discussion after that one), 2017 posted, 2016 not posted due to lack of update, 2015 not posted due to lack of update, 2014 posted, 2013 not posted due to questions about the legitimacys of ITNR (which led to the 2014 note on ITNR about it to affirm it should be there) --Masem (t) 17:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    The Emmys should stay because this is of interest to our readers, and we're not here to right great wrongs. -LaserLegs (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    That's a non-argument I'm afraid, plenty of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is interest to our readers, they don't get an indefinite free pass at ITNR. This simply elevates Emmys above all other TV awards and that's simply incorrect and nothing to do with righting great wrongs, just keeping the encyclopedia encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the people calling for the Emmys to be removed above also generally seemed to think there should be less ITNR items altogether. As I stated above, the arts are really important in everyday life, TV especially, so there's no reason to take it out of ITNR: it will always be of interest and in the news, this prevents the whole 'but TV isn't a disaster I don't care' discussion every year and lets ITN/C discuss quality if it gets nommed. I also agree with Masem (and the BAFTA conversation) that both Emmys and TV BAFTAs should be included since there's no practical difference besides a few shows each way. Kingsif (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have a lot of sport and politics at ITN/R, I think we need to keep the arts represented. I support the BAFTAs being added as well, but if that doesn't happen it's not a reason to remove the Emmys.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this doesn't really seem to be about the Emmys. No need to remove them regardless of what happens with the BAFTAs. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think I might have a way to compare these events. Humor me for a bit. What is News? As the name suggests it is NEW. So, there has to be a spike in topical interest right immediately after the day of the event. If we can measure the spikes post an event as compared to the averages, that should tell you the topical interest a news event. There are some flaws in this arguement e.g. think viral videos 'Charlie bit my finger'. But, if we rule out that these events are not one of those viral videos. i.e. Oscars, Emmys, or BAFTAs are not really viral events, they are recurring calendar events. We should be able to study this comparison. This News Index Multiplier(definition below) tells that the Emmys are just as newsworthy (or not) as the Oscars.

News Index Multiplier = Ratio of Immediate views bump to average over the 120 day window Ktin (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

# Event Event Date Start Window

(60 days prior)

End Window

(60 days post)

Average Views

during Window

Views Immediately

Post Event


(i.e. 'News' Index)

1 71st Primetime Emmy Awards 9/22/2019 7/24/2019 11/21/2019 8,105 323,953 39.97 [6]
2 92nd Academy Awards 2/9/2020 12/11/2019 4/9/2020 39,444 1,628,668 41.29 [7]
3 73rd British Academy Film Awards 2/2/2020 12/4/2019 4/2/2020 3,295 61,099 18.54 [8]

Ktin (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:TOP25 for "popular pages". Also remember this is an encyclopedia. Emmys are nailed on to remain ITNR forever yet no-one has given any reason why. Marvellous. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I thought I gave a reason? Kingsif (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
While there might be other qualitative reasons, seems like the above table makes that case quantitatively, doesn't it The Rambling Man? i.e. with a news index score (N120) of 40 being the same as that the Oscars, the above data tells me that it is as newsworthy (or not) as the Oscars. So, if Oscars is a good example of an event that needs to be on the ITNR listing, seems like the Emmys will fall in the same bucket. We can definitely refine the above scale, but, it seems a reasonable measure to compare events. Ktin (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per SchroCat. It's a shame that he's abandoned Wikipedia; I'm sure he'd be eager to defend the rationale for this. We don't need to give any undue coverage to this Hollywood circlejerk.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the only TV-related entry at ITN/R. I don't think it's undue to allow a single TV-related ITN posting each year. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 05:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per "We need more content, not less." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Can anyone name the most recent winner of the top Emmy awards? Spoiler - it was the (universally panned) final season of Game of Thrones for drama and Fleabag for comedy. People who follow movies know the Oscar winners. Football fans know who won the Champions League or Super Bowl. No one cares who wins the Emmys, even if you love the shows that win. This was not always the case, but it is now. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • There are clearly people that care. I could care less who wins 90% of the sports events we post, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize their value to other parts of the world. Same with other events like Eurovision or the Grammys. I don't think "this doesn't matter to me, so let's remove it" is a strong rationale. --Masem (t) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I wasn't talking about me specifically - I meant more generally this is of lesser interest than many may perceive. I accept that Eurovision has value to others because of the clear evidence; I'm not sure that any such evidence exists for the Emmys or Grammys. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but that should be by proof and not the fiat of ITNR. This is a once very relevant event that has significantly Miss America or boxing. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Given that the first night of the Creative Emmys had significant coverage just based on my news feed, I think its a misnomer to consider it a bygone award in this manner. I would agree that using the Miss America competition as a standard of a competition that has gone by the wayside in terms of public perception, the Emmys are NOT that. --Masem (t) 14:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Just not automatically that important to enough people across the globe. If one year's awards are important, we can discuss, but they aren't automatically worth including no matter how ho-hum this year's were. And I agree with OP, how do we justify US television awards being important enough for the main page? The chart is interesting, but I don't think it matters how many people visit the awards page. Interested people would visit it anyway. —valereee (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • A Canadian series swept the awards this year ... you know that right? Also careful pinging people I got accused of WP:CANVASSING when I did it even though I'm sure you did so in good faith. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Sorry, your point being that makes it more interesting this year, or that makes it not a US award? Personally I don't think it does either, but maybe? Gosh, you gave me a start there! I was like...did I accidentally ping someone before I had enough coffee? —valereee (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bzweebl, WaltCip, GreatCaesarsGhost, Masem, and Coffeeandcrumbs: your discussion has been moved here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: delete a clause from WP:ITNREdit

Should the following clause be deleted from Wikipedia:ITNSPORTS?

winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event.

See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#U.S. Open for context. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses (!votes)Edit

  • Keep Line's pretty clear, and I would add given the question at the US Open that it is not appropriate to replace a poorly developed event article with a well-developed winning player/team article. The event is ITNR, that's what needs to be posted. The line above is for the case if the player/team is nearly there in quality as well, then yes, it makes sense to also do the bit of spit and polish to make it bold as well. But to ignore the piss-poor event article when thats what's ITNR is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 19:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or rephrase. If the below discussion is an indication of the intended meaning of this clause, then it is better not to state it at all. As currently written, it is ambiguous and unclear. We are missing phrases such as "in addition to the event article". Unlike the awards section, all of the sports listed in this section have individual year articles. Saying "winning individuals or teams may be targets" is just adding unnecessary ambiguity. I have misinterpreted this section as far back as 2018 and it appears I am not the only one. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
We should also remove Generally from the previous sentence. IAR exists for a reason and can be invoked when necessary. We are giving people false hope and wasting their time, which is frustrating and maybe why we lose contributors. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete why is this even a question? The tournament is the ITN/R item that's the article that needs to be updated to be bold linked. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


  • I have not yet formed an opinion on the matter and would like to hear others opinion on this matter first. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There seems to be an underlying question here of what do we do when foobar is a noteworthy current event that merits ITN coverage, but foobar is a low-quality article. Those are incompatible standards, and I'm not active enough at ITN to know how the tension typically resolves, but there should be some agreed-upon way to do it besides just pretending that foobar isn't actually important. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bolding the players/winners rather than the event just sounds silly to me. Usually the event gets all the hype, not the players. IMO, bolding the players for the main blurb isn't the best choice. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In a curious way, leaving it as it is might encourage improvements on two pages rather than just one. Given most of our sports tournament pages and sports bios are junk, there's almost no risk in leaving it the way it is, and if we did continue to feature the winners rather than the tournament, I guess that still fulfils the ITN paradigm of directing readers to articles they're likely to be interested in. The major downside is that a player winning a tournament could be summed up in a single sentence in the bio, as opposed to dragging the competition articles out of table hell and offering some prose. So yes, I'm undecided. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, per WP:READER, I think the goal should always be to present what's best for readers, not to encourage development of underdeveloped articles. The only quality-related considerations for ITN should be if an article is so low-quality that it doesn't serve readers well to direct them there. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think I ever suggested directing readers to sub-par articles. If you know anything about me here, you'd realise that would be the last thing on my mind. I didn't advocate for the statement I made, I simply made it as a factual comment. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Masem, the line is most certainly not clear. See for comparison the ITNR section on Awards. It is perfectly understandable why me and others have understood it to mean that either the event or the winner can be chosen as the target. Are we going to say that the award is the ITNR and not the winner of the award. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Yup, same thing with the awards in ITNR. It is a lazy out to use the person or show/whatever as the target article when the award article can't be brought to a minimal bit of quality. As a related idea, if we had an ITNC for a person named for an award or who completed a sports achievement NOT listed at ITNR, that would be reasonable to name the person as the target article alone (we've done that before) But if we're putting up a ITNC that we're presuming is appropriate to post because we've assumed the award or sport event article is simply not there, we should not be posting that. --Masem (t) 21:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
      I don't think you are catching what I am trying to say. For example we don't expect Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to be the bold link, or the listicle at Turing Award. When comparing this clause under discussion to the explanation for the Awards at WP:ITNAWARDS ("Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article.") the one in the sports section is ambiguous. It could be interpreted to support exactly what you are opposing.
      I am not a fan of the circumventing the hard work of improving an article, but the current wording at ITNR gives an opening to do so. It say "Generally". Why say generally unless their are exceptions? Then after a semicolo, it appears to list an exception. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
      • The Nobel prize and most of the other academic awards do not have a ceremony of sorts where the award is given out, instead it is simply announced at a press conference. So there is no article to "prepare" in such cases - the base prize articles are all in good shape so there is the case where the person(s) articles need to be brought to speed. But on entertainment awards or sports events with months of planning and the like for a big "final" event, there is no excuse for not having an article to document all the proceedings up to that point. If we need to make a distinction of academic-style awards (where usually only one or two awards are given out at a time) compared to award shows (where multiple awards are given out and we focus on the one-to-three biggest), then that's reasonable, but I think the distinction between academic and entertainment award is clear. --Masem (t) 22:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
        To add to this discussion but to reflect on C&C's !vote, literally all that needs to add if the confusion is there (remember, this line has context around it), is to say... ...may be additional' targets ..., and that should resolve the matter. But the context of this , that "additional" to me was always implicitly there. --Masem (t) 23:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
        Without stating in addition to so and so, additional is still ambiguous and would not clarify this. Perhaps, what is needed is clarify that it is a secondary target, in which case the primary would be self-evident. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The way I read this text is that the winner of the event can be linked (if quality standards are met), with or without the event being linked. The former scenario is not an issue of course. The latter scenario i.e. where the event page is not well built out, but, the winner of the event meets the quality standards, will mean that the readers will still benefit from the news event and reading about the winner. If I put on my reader hat - I am always interest about the who? i.e. who won the event, the what? i.e. the event itself, and the how? i.e. the details of the event. Now, aiming for all three together is the best case scenario. But, having atleast a subset of the questions be answered is still a win. Hence, my thinking is that the language can remain as-is.
Question Page Example
Who? Winner Page Naomi Osaka or Dominic Thiem
What? Event Page (Aggregate) 2020 US Open (tennis)
How? Event Page (Specific) 2020 US Open – Women's Singles or 2020 US Open – Men's Singles

Ktin (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Update - there seems to be an assertion, that "In addition to" is a missing text. The way, I read the rules, is that any one amongst the rows in the above table is acceptable. But if there is an assertion that the winner page is purely in addition to the event page, then, I would support rewording to include the phrase "In addition". Of course, in the spirit of my previous argument, I would still think that we are saying that the winner can be linked either in addition or in lieu of the other pages Ktin (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    Ktin, The people above are saying the "in lieu" of case is not acceptable and not the intended meaning. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    Coffeeandcrumbs, Hmmm.
    Generally, the specific event article for that year/time period is the target article in the blurb (for example, 2016 Tour de France rather than the broader Tour de France); winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event.
    The way I read this text is that -- Generally, you should go in with 2020 US Open (tennis) instead of US Open (tennis), but, Naomi Osaka / Dominic Thiem may be the targets instead, if they meet the quality expectations. If this is not the case, I would suggest adding a "In addition" post the semicolon. Ktin (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs: technically this belongs at WT:ITNR but I don't care. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    This page has 5 times as many followers and this is more of a policy discussion than whether to add or remove an event. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The use of "generally" in the dependent clause clearly implies the event is the target most but not all of the time, so that word should be striken. I'd suggest adding "also" to the second clause ("may also be targets"). GreatCaesarsGhost 18:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect WT:ITNR to WT:ITNEdit

This seems pretty non-controversial to me. We don't need two talk pages for discussing this project so we should just fork lift the existing discussions at WT:ITNR here and redirect. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support There's a reason ITNR discussions are slower, but enough get started here instead of there already. While I can understand keeping them separate, for convenience - making discussions more accessible - one talkpage would be better. Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – This page has more watchers and is not very busy. We would be better served by a merger. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I've mentioned this before but the idea has never gained traction. I don't know why they are at two seperate locations. -- Calidum 03:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, we'll need to deal with the ITN/R archive box somehow. Stephen 03:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Good catch. Can I just move the old archive template from WT:ITNR here or will two boxes break the bot? I can ask at VPT if you don't know. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Two boxes will break the box and won't show the ITNR archives because they draw from page title. We'd have to make a new one just to display the other archive links? Kingsif (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • started a thread. Else I'll just do it manually and y'all can see how feeble my CSS skills are. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Neither page is too active so I don't see any obvious downsides to doing this, while the clear upside is more attention on discussions. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Question. Would it be easier to keep WTITNR in existence but depreciate it and just direct all discussions to this page? 331dot (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    Probably, and it serves the same purpose. Just put a banner up there and close it down? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, that seems like it would be the easiest way to accomplish this goal(which I do support), though I'm no expert and there may be some aspect I'm overlooking. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Leaving it there (unredirected) would just invite people to leave comments, which this proposal sought to end — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. Link to archives posted in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:ITNRD on the mobile app?Edit

I was playing with the mobile app (on iOS) earlier today, and I was able to see WP:ITN. However, clicking on the link just shows the top three news blurbs (each as a section). Does someone know why the mobile app does not carry the 'Ongoing events' nor the 'Recent Deaths' sections from the ITN panel? Is this question better asked in a different forum? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:VPT would be a good place to ask if you don't get a response here. It works on my mobile browser I don't use the dedicated app. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Introducing minimum time before postingEdit

Some users in a recent discussion on an ITN nomination have raised concerns that sometimes decisions on posting blurbs are speedily made without taking into account the time differences, thus practically depriving many users of the right to actively participate in discussions and share their thoughts. In this context, a user suggested introduction of minimum time of discussion before posting. I find this suggestion very sound and would like to propose introducing minimum time of 8 hours before posting non-ITNR nominations (this guarantees that people from different time zones could join while awake). For ITNR nominations, there is really no need to wait if the key articles are of sufficient quality. You are welcome with your thoughts on this proposal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - Even a lower limit of 5 or 6 hours would be better than where we are at the moment. -- KTC (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The exact number of hours can be discussed (I would have proposed 5 hours), but the principle should stand. Without it, we end up with these retain/pull-discussions all the time. A time limit will also ensure that articles can be properly updated/checked for quality, as often editors support on notability without examining quality. If there is not consensus for implementing this for all non-ITNR-items, one can consider only implementing it for death blurbs; they are contentious most of the time. ― Hebsen (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose slowing down the process arbitrarily. If a death receives immediate significant worldwide coverage and the article is in good shape, those editing at the time should be free to use their judgement. It's not like those two things happen together all that often, even. We don't need another rule when a blurb can simply be pulled. —valereee (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One can readily imagine many situations in which it would be problematic if a major news development could not be posted promptly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Valereee and Newyorkbrad: Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker, and we are not obliged to promptly post major news development. Interested readers will surely come to read the article linked from the main page even a few hours later simply because the amount of information we offer can not be easily found elsewhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Kiril Simeonovski, I'm well aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, thanks. ITN, however, is the one place on Wikipedia where we ought to try to get current events right quickly. If an article is in good shape and there's immediate worldwide coverage, why shouldn't we trust those editing at the time to use their judgement to make a non-irreversible decision? —valereee (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Valereee: The main problem is that a quick posting practically prevents people from influencing the outcome and the decision's non-irrevirsibility is usually despised as a pathetic attempt to right wrongs. This is far from the equity of treatment that we strive to achieve. And if you carefully calculate the average time of posting nominations, it is well beyond the proposed minimum time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Kiril Simeonovski, the average time when the article is already in good shape would be a better measure, I think. I do take your point. I just don't think this is a chronic problem. The death of any other current sitting SC Justice, and really IMO any US Senator, even McConnell, I wouldn't support for a blurb. For me personally, there is no US athlete or celebrity that I'd support for a blurb, although I'm sure many would disagree. If Trump or Xi or the Queen of England died, though, I'd like to be able to report before 8 hours is up. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
That would be a bit stale since the queen of England died in 1603. Fgf10 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense Sir. The last queen of England died in 1714. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Valereee, I still don't really understand this objection. Eight hours post-nom is really not very much in the global scheme of things and it might not even need to be binding where there is a very strong consensus to post. The real issue, to me at least is in cases like this where very few users have actually been able to comment. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Brigade Piron, and I don't disagree at all that normally a few hours is not a problem. And maybe we need some policy about very strong consensus, or number/proportion of commenters who've supported, or what automatically gets a blurb so it doesn't need its roll to be slowed. But just a straight 'nothing until 8 hours is up, no matter how many people have supported the need for a blurb and/or how strong the consensus is' is likely to cause a problem. Let's not fix a very small, rare problem with something that could cause a bigger (though likely also rare) problem and ties the hands of well-intentioned editors who, while they may very well have a bias, as we all do, aren't doing anything "sneaky" lol —valereee (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee, I certainly don't think it's "sneaky"! But I also don't think it's that rare either - it seems to happen increasingly to a greater or lesser extent on every UK/US news story for which no established posting precedent exists. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, that was a snarky joke not directed at you, I shouldn't have said it. —valereee (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Brigade Piron, perhaps a different solution: A minimum number of comments, with a minimum proportion supporting? I could support something like that as a better solution. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee, that really would open up an issue of systematic bias. Plenty of non-Anglophone stories get fewer than a handful of votes. It is not a quorum that is the issue, but a reasonable percentage of the people who would be interested in commenting. A time-limit is a reasonable guide to that. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Brigade Piron, combine the two ideas? 8 hours, except in the case of a minimum number of comments, with a minimum proportion supporting. As GCG pointed out below, the rule as proposed would mean that if we had 50 comments and no opposes, we'd still have to wait 8 hours. Of course then we'd have to be able to come to some agreement on those minimums lol... —valereee (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee, I think we can count on admins applying a time-based standard with appropriate common sense. I am against making things more complex than they need to be for obvious reasons. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose any arbitrary minimum discussion time, as I have in the past. There is no problem here to solve. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, either the 8 hours proposed or some other minimum time. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. A 30-min-nom-to-post discussion can by definition not build up a full discussion, even among users in a single time zone, and so cannot provide a real WP:CONSENSUS. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - there is an ongoing problem of (usually American) posters sneaking contentious noms in under the radar when other parts of the world are asleep. This is sorely needed. I would suggest 8 hours. People who complain that this would stop things being posted speedily clearly don't understand what ITN is actually about, and their votes can be safely disregarded. Fgf10 (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    In the interests of balance, I think I should point out that the phenomenon of a quick consensus to post being followed by a consensus in the other direction is not a uniquely American phenomenon. There was a similar reaction at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2020#(Closed) 2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Fgf10, that is the second time you've assumed bad faith in this issue. Warning left on user talk. —valereee (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Fgf10 Just because others disagree with you does not mean their opinions should be disregarded any more than yours should be. What makes your opinion special? 331dot (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is not special. It is just that some have demonstrated they don't have the required knowledge about ITN (they think it's a news ticker where we must rush to post ASAP) to have an informed option. Therefore theirs can be disregarded. Fgf10 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose ... depriving many users of the right to actively participate in discussions and share their thoughts: Not at all. Posts have been pulled before based on continued discussions after the an initial post. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.—Bagumba (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Bagumba: That's true but there's a huge difference between influencing the outcome before and after posting similar to the "first come, first served" principle. As I noted above, post-posting opposition is usually despised as a pathetic attempt to right wrongs because the fact it's been already posed is misused as a starting point and a strong argument against (normally, there are exceptions).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Kiril Simeonovski: If there was a compiled list of past discussions where this would apply, we would have a better sense of how often this happens (or not).—Bagumba (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose So, if there are 50 supports and no opposes for something when we're all awake, we still sit around for 8 hours? At which point all the admins have gone to bed themselves? We expect admins to make judgment calls. Hard cases make bad law. We can say the RBG was posted to quickly without jumping to this WP:CREEP. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per many of the comments above, particularly those concerning WP:NOTBURO. This has been proposed and rejected previously and I see no reason why it should be different this time. And by the way, the “not news/not a news ticker” argument being raised by many of the supporters is a reason to scrap ITN all together, not to enforce some arbitrary posting rule that has nothing to do with the quality of the article being posted. -- Calidum 14:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for all blurbs, but not something as long as 8 hours. While corrections can be made to blurbs, we should aim to have the whole accurate story before it goes up. Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we need some sort of guidance on this, because in my view the Ginsburg blurb was posted far too soon. (And that's not to criticise the admin who posted it, because currently we have no such guidance in effect). On the other hand though, something like the Notre Dame fire or other major headline stories, if the article gets in shape quickly and it's obvious we'll post, then we shouldn't wait around. The principal point is whether there is any likelihood of serious opposition. That's a judgment call on the part of the admin who sees it, but it's one they should be actively encouraged to make. So my preference would be to stipulate a minimum amount of time for any nomination likely to attract opposition.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    The poster had written: There appears to be overwhelming support for a full blurb. It doesn't sound like they thought it was "likely to attract opposition". The suggested changes likely would not have changed anything here.—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Expect that there was then very significant opposition after it was posted. Fgf10 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I'm saying it's a judgement call, not just to look at the !votes already cast, but to consider the overall picture and whether there's any conceivable reason someone might object to the posting. Any admin actively seeking to post ITN items should have enough knowledge to judge that, and I find it hard to imagine that many would consider the posting of RBG uncontroversial. That's not the same as saying that it might find consensus because of course it can, just that is it likely anyone will object? And that judgement also has to take into account the fact that US items are more likely to gain unanimous support at hours when European editors are asleep. Overall, such a measure will avoid a lot of bad blood and lead to more harmonious consensus building, and I strongly recommend that we adopt it.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Meh, bad blood dates back to that tea party.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
While I can agree with this in principle, how would you word "likely to be serious opposition" into objective guidelines? Banedon (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
You do realise that the Boston Tea Party is something that kids in the UK literally no NOTHING about? They're not taught it, no-one cares about it. It's literally a ZERO thing here. Just FYI. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost. Also there is no need to further complicate a process that is arbitrarily complicated to begin with. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I know I have proposed this before with similar opposition as NOTBURO-type reasoning. But I do think this is a reminder to posting admins and participants that we should really still not rush to post a blurb on RDs that are strongly tied to a national factor when there hasn't really had much time for the "rest of the world" to speak up about it. This is not saying we wouldn't have posted RBG in the end of the day as a blurb, but it might not have been posted until 8-12+ hr out from the news of the death. Remember that rapid RD posting is always an acceptable option though as long as there a quality article and concensus is there for posting. --Masem (t) 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Postmortem Looking back at the blurb !votes shows this is much ado about nothing. A couple of opposes after the post were objecting to the WP:SNOW determination, not really offering a substantive objection to the blurb's merits. Sort of akin to Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". This never came close to being pulled for reasons other than bureaucratic procedure or non-existent minimums. Let's move on.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this comes up every time something gets posted that others don't like. You all had your opposes anyway and guess what, it's still the box. If a particular admin goes off the rails, deal with that admin. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment minimum must be for 24h and for all noms ITNR and RD as well --LaserLegs (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 24 hours, oppose any other time limit less than that. 24 hours is the only acceptable time limit, any other time limit less than that means someone will be disenfranchised. FWIW, Korean, Portuguese and Chinese Wikipedia ITNs all have this super-domestic story only Unitedstatesians cared about so... Howard the Duck (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN is supposed to be "in the news", yes Wikipedia is not news, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO either. There is no guarantee that an arbitrary time limit will fix the issue being mentioned nor any evidence that this is prevalent enough to need a fix. --qedk (t c) 20:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. Certainly if President Trump were to fall down dead this afternoon, there would be no question that this was immediately blurb-worthy. Perhaps, however, we can delineate a hierarchy of cases where more studied consideration would be due, as with the deaths of retired actors and athletes. BD2412 T 21:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support With reluctance. I do agree with Newyorkbrad and valereee, but what I'm not seeing here is any indication of understanding from American editors as to why what they have been doing is so very wrong. In the absence of this, their judgement cannot be trusted, and a hard rule is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Please tell me why my judgment cannot be trusted. I don't consider the nationality of the person whose judgment I am evaluating. Maybe it is you who is not understanding why what is going on here is occurring. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    To be honest, I didn't expect such a baseless ad hominem from you. Where was your outrage when the Notre Dame fire got posted and had to be pulled because the article lacked an update? -- Calidum 04:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Not outraged, just disappointed. I was willing to flip my !vote if some understanding was expressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support minimum of 8 hours. About the "if Trump were to fall dead" objection: until we agree that ITN is a news ticker and not part of an encyclopedia, this is not a valid objection. Banedon (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Why not a full 24 hours? Should we admonish and refer to AN/I any admin who violates the mandatory cooling off period? --LaserLegs (talk)
      • Note I said "minimum". 24 hours is above the minimum. And of course, if this policy is implemented, we should admonish and refer to AN/I any admin who breaks it. Banedon (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this isn't American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not certain what that fact has to do with this matter. Not all 320 million of us are awake the same hours of the day; nor are the people in each and every country. It's not possible to accomodate everyone. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
      • You're not certain?? That's pretty naive. Obviously the practically instant blurb posting of the death of an American judge is evidence of this being American Wikipedia. It would never work for any other individual of any other nationality on Earth, we know that. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have folks considered a two Admin closure mechanism? The idea being that if one is rushing, the other is the tempering force. Alternately, at the risk of opening a can of worms (or even violating some rule) -- is there a notion of Admins from regions? Divide the globe in x zones (e.g. four) to account for time zones, and necessitate that the closing action have the concurrence of Admins from at least two zones? Ktin (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Why would we need admins from different regions? It's either in the news or it's not. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
      • It should be damn clear that sometimes, particularly with the US media, that certain national stories are blown up with excessive coverage compared to the rest of the world, and to the relative basis of what ITN covers. For example, when Trump's impeachment stuff was going on in the House, that *dominated* the news, but we didn't touch it until the House voted to the impeachment terms. I'm sure BBC and other foreign papers covered it to a degree but not to the volume that our media covered it (to the point you could not avoid it). RDs are very similar, particularly around politicians, entertainers, and athletes. I mean, not saying she won't get a blurb when the Queen dies, but I can tell you that this will be a few hours in US TV, and week-long thing in the UK. --Masem (t) 23:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
        • I think you underestimate- not illogicaly- the amount of attention at least some Americans pay to the British Royal Family, especially since Meghan married into it. But I digress. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
          • I thought Meg was from Canadia, a place of which no yank dare speak? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
            • Oh that's not true, no one speaks of Canada.... --LaserLegs (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
              Nor speaks Canadian. —Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
              Canada eh? Mounties eh? Moose eh? Heritage buildings eh? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Masem so is that what this really is? We're upset that a "US-centric" was story was posted (and remains posted) before sufficient non-US people got to complain about it? If that's the case, maybe the time limit is too broad? Perhaps it should only apply to "US-centric" stories? Or we can amend the "significance" criteria at WP:ITN to stipulate that "US-centric" stories must have global appeal or global reporting? If that's what the problem is then fine lets just codify the anti-US bias in the rules instead of coming up with these silly rules which in theory apply to everything but in practice apply only to stories pertaining to countries found undesirable. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    • We’re posting news items on the front page of a website, not launching nuclear weapons. Jesus Christ. -- Calidum 00:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment While I don't think a time limit is particularly necessary, this instance is indeed extraordinary. Admins (CaptainEek here) need to be more prudent in posting such items, i.e. death blurbs, rather than going for a 'fastest finger first' even if there appears to be "overwhelming support" because such noms tend to get overwhelmed by supporters/followers of the person in most cases. Gotitbro (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Admins are supposed to use their best judgement when it comes to posting blurbs and sometimes mistakes happen. An arbitrary rule doesn't seem useful in this situation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support only if this applies to ALL nominations. All of them. ITN/R and Non-ITN/R. This includes deaths of titanic figures such as Stephen Hawking or Paul McCartney. I do not care how notable or unprecedented something is. If we're going to apply a standard to nominations for the purpose of doing away with subjectivity, then we need to do it across the board. We are, after all, not a newspaper. Our goal is not to beat Fox News or CNN to the punch in terms of publishing a breaking news story; it's to ensure newsworthy and high-quality articles are sent to the main page.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Let’s be real here, many of the people pushing for this rule (not necessarily you) will be the first to say we should ignore it when Elizabeth (or Philip) inevitably kicks the bucket. -- Calidum 18:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I will not be that person if this rule is implemented. In fact, I'll be the first to criticize the ones who try to flout this rule just for ol' Queenie's sake. And I'm a Commonwealther.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia is not a news ticker. Having a 24-hour consultation window would be beneficial to the wider community. Trying to rush to the main page is not why ITN is here. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
How does artificially holding back articles (based on an arbitrary time) that people might be looking for help readers? 331dot (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
We're not holding back articles. The articles are there. A link on the main page is just that, a link. Articles can be searched for and found through far more means than one link on the main page: nothing is being suppressed. The wider community should have an opportunity to support or oppose a posting on the main page, and we need to be aware of any timezone bias, US- or otherwise. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It is holding back articles. Many people still look to the MP for information and hiding it from them artificially doesn't help them. We cannot accommodate everyone on this planet who might want to comment. People within the same country work odd shifts, different hours each day, family committments, and so on. I've been on here at varying hours in the day depending on my schedule. I don't expect anyone to wait for the chance that I might comment. We have plently of after-the-fact comments and blurbs have been pulled after consensus changed; I myself was involved in such an event. We don't need more rules, we need more nominations from other places to consider. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"Holding back" sounds like an advance towards a news ticker, which ITN is not. If we wait 24 hours before publishing a newsworthy event, so what? This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not Wikinews or Reuters. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
ITN is not a news ticker, but it should also be timely and relevant. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @331dot: for your responses, but I am going to have to stick to my view here. "Holding back" is not what I want, it's not what you want, and it's not what this proposal would create. Having nominations stay behind the front page, so to speak, for 24 hours would not cause those articles to be hidden or denied potential readers, in my opinion, and I hope that after all this to-and-fro, we can work on making ITN better for everyone. I rarely have such a good natured discussion on Wiki these days so thank you for disagreeing on good terms :) doktorb wordsdeeds 20:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Any news story currently on the main page is open for debate and must remain open for debate (including arguments to pull it or rephrase it) for as long as it's posted on the main page, and it's unacceptable that US editors nominate a local news item from their country in the middle of the night before people in Europe have had a chance to participate, and then attempt to close the debate; in effect they've only had a local debate favouring editors from the U.S. on whether domestic news from that country should be posted. This is not something we accept from any other country. The main page has had problems with US bias for years. If we now post a US judge who isn't the head of the supreme court, then there are no reasons not to post supreme court justices from other countries, but I imagine any such nomination, even of justices from large countries such as the U.K., Germany, Russia or China, would meet fierce resistance here. The bigger problem is not that it was posted in the first place, but that there is an unacceptable attempt to stifle debate and prevent large parts of the world from weighing in by closing the debate on a live item. If postings are now suddenly treated in such an inflexible way, instead of being subject to discussion and revision as they should, then we need a minimum time requirement, but a better solution would of course be to clarify that live items on the main page are always subject to debate, especially on phrasing and whether they should be pulled, and that discussions can only be closed when the item is no longer on the main page. It's also important that discussions remain open for more than a few hours so that people have a chance to offer their opinion, especially as previous discussions are often treated as precedents in subsequent debates. As it stands now, U.S. editors had far more opportunity to participate in that discussion and it doesn't reflect the opinion of the global community. --Tataral (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Is the US the only country in the world awake at 00:00 UTC? Do Canadians all have an earlier bed time than us? Do Australians and New Zealenders stay logged off until it’s nighttime there? -- Calidum 20:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I strongly object to the nefarious-sounding "posted in the middle of the night" terminology being bandied about here. There was nothing nefarious here. I have participated here at varying hours of the day and everyone else here is capable of doing so as well- not that that's required. Blurbs have been and can be pulled. I've done so myself. "Doesn't reflect the opinion of the global community" is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but that isn't clear. If you want to keep debates open while an item is posted, that is a different proposal. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Strongly object as much as you like but it's patently true. This judge death was posted within half an hour of proposal during a time when Europe was "asleep". By the time anyone was awake enough to object, it had overwhelming consensus from America and that was game over. Cry foul all you like, but that was how it happened. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
How provincial of you to think Europe=the world. And for the record, at least one user from the EU and one from NZ supported the nomination before it was posted. -- Calidum 20:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Um, amazing how you can make up so much bollocks, but well done! I'd say give it another go, but I'm afraid the best you'll come up with is "Europe=the world"!!! Inane. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It is certainly not true that there was a nefarious motive here, nothing like "let's keep those Brits or Aussies or Europeans from commenting and post now!!!" 331dot (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you mis-interpreted what I said. It wasn't nefarious, it was just "rushed through" (like, mega-rushed through like we've never seen before) as typifies the actions of those who think this is American Wikipedia. In a time when RDs being posted as blurbs is considered contentious, this one took the yankee biscuit, less than 30 minutes from nom to full blurb. When the majority of Europe are sleeping (and Calidum, no need to be a WP:DICK, we realise that other non-American contributors exist, outside Europe, just in low numbers compared to Europe, we're not stoopid you know), it's simple irony that an Amurican will get a free pass to ITN. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Remember the hours of the day aren't created equal. Some people are going to be more active at 10am compared to 10pm local time, others vice versa. Banedon (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Question ok so if we go through with this, the first "WP:IAR I'm posting this now" breaks the whole thing so the punishment needs to be automatic and severe. 30 day TBAN for ITN? Work it out (start a subsection if you want) and it'll need to be added to the admin instructions. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Let's not. That would take this horrendous idea and make it even worse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say such a ban would be required though some kind of penalty should be in place. This rule - necessary, as it is - can't be implemented without a good structure of consequences. IAR is a red button which shouldn't be pressed every time. Maybe if an Admin presses the IAR button, they have to get a second admin to okay a nomination for a certain period? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as arbitrary and unnecessary. It's rare that these quick postings happen and even when they do, the discussion remains open and if there is enough opposition the item will be pulled - it's happened before. P-K3 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • The discussion didn't remain open. I would like to weigh in in favour of pulling the item, but the discussion was rapidly closed once the item had been posted in the middle of the night. The closing of the discussion to prevent people from saying "pull", and after US editors had had far more time to participate, is the bigger problem here. --Tataral (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Unless the timestamps are deceiving me, it was posted 0:04 UTC, and discussion was closed at 17:11 UTC, or people had a full 17 hours to comment until the discussion was longer than RBG's article. Europeans had ~11 hours of daylight to participate in the discussion. To say that this was rapidly closed is a blatant lie. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Tataral You are completely wrong, as Howard the Duck says.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Exactly, it was rapidly closed. 11 hours, or more like 10, of meaningful time is rapid. And Europeans had far fewer hours of meaningful time to participate. Americans had the entire evening, the time when editors are often most active on Wikipedia. And no live item should be closed, ever. There is no reason to close an item after 10 hours to prevent people from arguing that it should be pulled, after a very skewed initial discussion where the billions of people who live in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia had no real opportunity to take part. --Tataral (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
        • That's an interesting definition of "rapidly." -- P-K3 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
        • It was closed around midday of the U.S. East Coast and mid-morning of the West Coast, the time Americans would've piled on with supports. Americans could've argued it was closed too early as they could've piled on with even more supports. Europeans had more than enough time upon waking up until late afternoon to oppose. When it was nominated it was morning in Australia, and Indians had the opportunity to oppose through out their working day. Everyone had a fair share from when it was nominated up to when it was closed. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Compare the TikTok nomination: Nominated 2:27 UTC, closed 11:15 UTC, or nine hours of discussion. RBG's nom was on 23:41, posted as RD on 23:55 (article was GA), blurbed on 0:04, and closed 17:11 the next day, or almost 18 hours of discussion. If there was something rapidly done, it was posting, not closing the discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Time zones Actually, while Europe is sleeping, it is middle of day in Australia and New Zealand, and English is an official language in former colonized lands like India, Singapore and Hong Kong.—Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
          • FWIW, I've been to HK, and they don't speak English. They speak more English in Bali than in Kowloon. We have our resident Australian who proudly waves the flag of #USbiaz but it seems that he's absent right now. Indians don't come to ITN unless there's an Indian nom, and in big numbers at that. There are too few Singaporeans, I don't think I encountered anyone from SG in ITN/C. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
            • Service workers in HK, generally no. White collar would read and write, speaking level varies on their background.—Bagumba (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
          • There are 4.8 million people in NZ, and 24 million in Australia. Europe has 750 million people (many of whom speak English and use the English language Wikipedia), Africa (in the same time zones) 1.2 billion, then there a significant parts of Asia that were also asleep. Comparing parts of the world with literally billions of people to 4 million people in NZ is ridiculous. --Tataral (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: An arbitrary solution in want of a problem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Frivolous finger-twiddling would be of no benefit 99% of the time. When we sit around waiting 8 hours to post "President Trump nukes California" or something, this policy would inevitably be whittled down to "8 hours but only if it's not important", which would just lead to more pointless bickering on what constitutes an "important" ITN posting. Maybe we could bring back the old RD criteria too. Nohomersryan (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been open for 2 days now and gotten 26 !votes - time to refer it to requests for closure? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    Typically, requests for comment run for 14 days. Why the rush? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    No rush, didn't realize there was a guideline in place. Thanks for clarifying. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder if there's a major discrepancy between how US editors are voting on this, compared to non-US editors. Banedon (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • So what? This nom is about giving everyone a voice right not keeping US-centric stories off the main page right? Are US based contributors less worthy? Should nationality be considered when evaluating consensus? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I think given there are probably 10 times as many US contributors as non-US contributors, I wouldn't be surprised that systemic bias will play a part in the discussion. Like how we spent 20 minutes discussing putting a blurb up for a dead US judge, as noted this would NEVER be the case for any other country on planet Earth. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
        • the Notre Dame fire was posted in 52 minutes but I don't have time to write a script to comb through 5 years of ITN noms and try to find one posted in less than 20 minutes. I'm still trying to understand if the minimum wait proposed here is to give everyone a chance to respond or to keep "US-centric" items off the main page. If it's the former, then US-based people are "everyone" too. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
          • I think comparing the destruction of a globally historic landmark to the death of a US judge is apples and pears. But hey, YMMV. This is, after all, American Wikipedia. I'm surprised the Notre Dame blurb didn't include the arrondissement of the tragedy, nor the square-footage of the fire. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
            • So should only a subset of nominations be subject to a 24 hour waiting period and if so which subset? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
              • Uh, no. That would be absurd. What I said was that there is no direct analogy for most of the "instant postings" for US items. You can find the odd one (like Notre Dame) which were truly EV-worthy, but no "subset" requirement should exist, that's the whole point. Yanks are in the vast majority, yanks push the items they think are useful, yanks vote them in and yanks vote to keep them in. Simple. This is American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
              • Right now, 50% of ITN is AMERICAN-centric. Say no more. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
                • Perhaps if more articles from other regions around the world were improved and nominated you'd not perceive the US as being "over represented"? Are any of the items in the box of poor quality or not "in the news"? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
                • Hilarious as usual, you're the one complaining about the global news stories (I believe you're particularly vexed by "bus-plunge-gate"). The point being made here is that the general usership perceive this to be American Wikipedia. It's been the case for more than a decade, indeed we have a "note" at another section of the main page to actually "allow" or "enable" 50% or more of that section to be American, "so stop complaining about it" (or don't even start, don't you dare...) You know all this, you've been around long enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
                  • I opposed the bus plunge because the article was and remains a mostly orphaned disaster stub and I routinely oppose all incarnations of those. I empathize with your point being made, please try to appreciate how disheartening it is when "global significance" and "bias" are only trotted out for US-centric stories. I made a proposal below to bolt "global significance" right into the requirements section, or maybe we could bring back minority topics I don't know. The fact is the US is also the largest english speaking population in the world so we're going to get more articles and better WP:RS about them. I just don't think that a mandatory waiting period is the right answer because it really is just a way to pile on made up requirements like global significance or bias. If too many US-centric stories really is the problem here then lets codify a fix like global/bias instead of keeping the discussion open long enough for people to erect a wall of text. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Systemic Bias is about checking yourself, not others. We are all biased, but if ITN was dominated by biased Yanks you wouldn't see multiple British sporting events contested by only two sides at ITNR. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see the need for any strict rule. There are usually enough veteran ITN editors around to prevent crass unnecessary and locally biased postings. I basically oppose on the same grounds as GCG further above (not their last comment :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

minimum time before posting part deuxEdit

Eight hours is a little crazy, and that nom is going nowhere. But 20 minutes is ridiculous, too. So how about we try a 90 minute waiting period between nomination and posting? GreatCaesarsGhost 20:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

How about this: No posting of anything except for ITNR and RDs between 22:00 and 6:00 UTC. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Again and again. No Boat Race comment? I begin to wonder if there are any genuinely useful contributions from you to this project. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The stated purpose of the waiting period is to give people around the world the chance to comment. 90 minutes does not do that. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah the only equitable proposal so far is WaltCip suggesting 24 hours for all noms ITNR or otherwise without exception. If we are going to bow to this absurdity that's the only workable proposal. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay but 8 hours is dead. So right now we're back to no minimum at all. I think something IS better than nothing. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Clearly the only question here is: is ITN a news ticker? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    And the answer is "no". But if we get tangled up in this debate - and it's one where I agree with your view that Wikipedia is NOT a news-ticker - then we're going to have to build a bigger talk page. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    In my opinion, The Rambling Man, it is not, thus my suggestion that all noms must be subject to a 24-hour minimum. Any article, even FAs, benefit from the extra time given to ensure everything is up to snuff - decent prose, properly sourced, et cetera.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

minimum time for closing nomsEdit

If we're going to implement a minimum time for posting, that same minimum should apply for a "snow closing". Same duration so if it's 24h to post then it's 24h to close --LaserLegs (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Unneeded as anyone can reopen a closed nom. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • A closed nom says in bold red text "Please do not modify it" ... 24h for post, 24h for close. Seems pretty sane to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      • WP:5P5: The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. You really should read the close as "Please do not modify it (if it's going to be a waste of time)".—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • If we're going to forcibly keep debate open for 24h before posting something even if it seemed "obvious" then we need to wait 24h before closing even if that seems "obvious". --LaserLegs (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Okay, but we most assuredly are not waiting 24h before posting something. 8 was the suggestion and it got taken to the woodshed. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
            • We have to wait 24h. If this is really about giving everyone a voice and not keeping "us-centric" stories off the main page then 24h is necessary to make sure people in the US get to review noms about APAC before posting. It's just how it is, and the same for closing. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
              • No. Absolutely not needed. Some nominations are rather silly, and others are good-faith noms but the nominators don't know the notability standard for ITN. This is why SNOW close exists. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
                • Oh I would agree, some nominations are obviously going to be posted and don't need to be delayed arbitrarily but here we are. 24h to post, 24h to close, equitable treatment for all noms for all persons around the globe. Seemed so obvious to me I'm not sure how we can oppose it. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

arbitrary section breakEdit

Although it is being proposed for merger, death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now its own article, which perhaps might be some ex post facto evidence as to why a blurb was warranted.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

We have a draft of Death of Naya Rivera, I'm not sure such articles hold that weight any more. On the subject, I have to again point out that in recent months the bar to post a death as a blurb has become exponentially higher, I at least hope posting RBG reminds people that the death of someone can be news enough to warrant a blurb without needing to over-analyze the individual in the way we have been. In fact, trying to place well known people in a hierarchy with those deserving of a blurb above a certain line is turning ITN into more of an obit factory: if it wants to stay true to its purpose it should be looking at the media response and if the death is notable rather than run of the mill. Kingsif (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
In the case of RBG, the notability of her death is incommensurable from a national standpoint due to its potential impact on the SCOTUS, a court system that has become a de facto legislative body over the years. The presence of one justice with an opposite (to RBG) political bent on the court can severely swing the country's outlook on issues such as healthcare, abortion, gun ownership, and civil rights. The timing with the presidential election is even more notable even without the Merrick Garland comparison. Globally, it's relatively meaningless.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Introducing short term items for local newsEdit

Non-admin close; good faith suggestion but misguided interpretation of "local", it seems. Nothing will come of such a discussion but snark. Klaxons have been called... Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was thinking Ruth Bader Ginsburg's blurb is likely to be removed, but it was good that it was up for a while because she was an important person that deserved something beyond a footnote in the ITN box. And then I thought I see items like that on WP:ITN/C for other parts of the world all the time. (I read WP:ITN/C several times a week even though I rarely !vote. Yea, I lurk.) Perhaps we should allow !vote for "short term posts" to the top of the box that do not roll down, but are replaced by the next item. The whole point of the links on the main page is to give our readers stuff to look at. This way we can give them links to things "in the news" locally and not just internationally. I know this will make the ITN processes busier with more suggestions and admins replacing things more often, but it might be worth it. Thoughts? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Local news is already allowed. WP:ITNC say to not "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."—Bagumba (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
That is what it says, but the reality is people just say instead the item is not significant enough and not in the news in my country. This could create a venue for such items. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not believe that Ginsburg's blurb is likely to be removed, nor should it be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
People will say that in any case. The whole "global significance" thing is only hauled out for US noms. I think Americans do exaggerate the importance of domestic events, but some amplification is valid given the impact the US has on global politics and culture. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Exactly this. The whole can't oppose an item relating to a single county is used by far the most for US noms. Others are expected to show global significance. Double standards are never good. Fgf10 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll AGF that you are not being sarcastic, but I meant double standard in the other direction. We never for a second argue about the global significance of a flood in India or a coup in Mali, because they are so obviously NOT globally significant. But when something happens in the US, we trot out the "not globally significant" arguments. It's a ludicrous argument no matter what the nom. Short of an asteroid hitting, global significance is a matter of perspective. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • We posted a disaster stub of a staggeringly irrelevant literal bus plunge and the only consideration made for "systemic bias" was a demonstrably false claim that a similar story from the United States would have been swiftly posted (in fact, a similar story from the USA was sent to AfD). Right now, in the box, are "local" protests in Belarus and a "local" leadership change in Japan. Find something else to complain about please. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Bus-plunge-gate! Sound the klaxons!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Global significance criteriaEdit

Considering the minimum time discussion above is really about "US-bias" I want to propose an alternate track. Let's amend the WP:ITN#Significance criteria to stipulate a 3rd hard requirement:

  • The event is considered significant to a global audience

We'd have to refactor the guidelines below which specifically contradict such a requirement but this would allow us to codify the real intent of the "minimum waiting period" suggested above - to keep "US-centric" stories off the main page - without needlessly delaying the posting of "non-US" stories. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not. -- Calidum 00:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, a thousand times no. Very little would be posted. In addition, the proper way to address bias is not to suppress American stories, but to post more other stories. We shouldn't be targeting any specific country for suppression. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought this was a joke proposal? But definitely not - any user from any country that is not the subject of the blurb could say "well it's not in the newspaper I'm reading and I don't care" and that singular argument could prevent anything from being blurbed ever again as it would fail complete global interest. This is a rule creep that would harm the project. Kingsif (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    • This is sincere. We aaw with the TikTok nom as well contributors believe "global significance" is important. I just want to adhere to the guidelines, and modify then if they no longer represent the consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
      • @LaserLegs: Maybe it's the heightened tensions, downplaying everything, or more time people have had in recent months but I think ITN is seeing more bias. I still think it's unintentional, but then users are applying posting criteria in perhaps not the best ways to support/oppose items they just LIKE or DONTLIKE. (And I don't have anyone specific in mind, this is just how I'm seeing comments change) Hopefully it will calm down soon without any of these needs for intervention. Kingsif (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Fine, then lets make "global significance" a hard requirement for all ITN noms so they can all be treated fairly. If the plan is to just suppress "US-centric" stories then fine, propose a hard limit or something don't hide it behind mandatory waiting periods and made up rules. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Just do as WP:ITNC already states: Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

A modest proposal for US-centric itemsEdit

  • I hereby propose that only User:Jimbo Wales be allowed to post any item related to the United States. If the nomination has been open for 25 hours without action from Jimbo, the nominator can take the request to WP:ARBCOM. If two-thirds of members there agree to post it, it gets posted. This new rule only applies to items concerning the United States. God Save The Queen! -- Calidum 00:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support but only if Jimbo renounces his US citizenship, moves the WMF and all compute assets out of the United States first in order to prevent even the vapor of "bias" --LaserLegs (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    I thought Jimbo was a UK citizen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Born and raised in Alabama. Now a dual citizen. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Why doesn't it say that on his Wikipedia page? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Bias. When I view his article (or any article) all I see is "blah blah blah America blah guns blah blah Jesus blah blah blah more America". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support However I think we need the front page ITN box to be split into two columns, for US- and UK-English spellings. Oh and MOSFLAG to be ignored so we have to have a massive row about using the UK flag for "UK English" and what should be done with Aussies. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • We need more events contested by only two schools in obscure sports. Surely Exeter and Cardiff have a fierce hacky sack rivalry? GreatCaesarsGhost 21:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    I agree, there's no point in featuring a canoe race up the London River which pre-dates anything of interest in those Western colonies. Yippee-Kay-Ay-Ak. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    I was going to respond with some kind of pointed snark, but "Yippee-Kay-Ay-Ak" just made my day. Cheers TRM and nicely done. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Who was that masked man? – Sca (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "In the news".