Open main menu

(Closed) Do midterm elections count as ITNR as defined?Edit

No consensus on the OP as whether or not midterms are ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The United States (2018) and the Philippines (2019) have upcoming midterm elections where the presidency is not at stake, while all seats in the lower house and some in the upper house are, with local elections in both countries on the same day as the national election, as well. Do these elections count as "The results of general elections in All states on the List of sovereign states"? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently not, given the row that we had back in 2014 about this very issue.--WaltCip (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Would we see similar arguments opposing the U.S. election in November? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
A general election is one in which all seats in the legislative body are being contested. It does not require the position of president or head of state to be involved, and local elections on the same day are irrelevant. If the entire lower house is involved in those elections, I think that would qualify. It's not entirely straightforward when the upper house is also an elected body and only partially contested, but an entire lower house is good enough for me. Modest Genius talk 15:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The one caveat is that we generally don't post legislative elections when combined with the first step of a two-step presidential election, like the recent election in Brazil. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's odd. Why shouldn't we post the legislative election when it happens, then a new blurb for the separate election of a president a few weeks later? Modest Genius talk 09:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Do we post legislative elections if it doesn't affect who'd be the head of government? Brazil uses a presidential system, and this was one of the points raised in the 2014 US elections nomination. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, for legislative elections that occur on the same day as the presidential election, someone in WP:WPE&R is on personal crusade to keep all elections under one "general election" article with no splits no matter what. This means the legislative elections are usually ignored in favor of the presidential one, which is a pity. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
As our own article notes, the term general election has different meaning depending on where you are, so this is another case of ITNR shooting ITNC in the foot. Common sense would hold that the term "general"[1] serves as to distinguish from "special," that being an election where a single office or issue is being decided. This election will choose 87% of the US Congress, 72% of state governors, and over half of state legislators. (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should define it like that: for ITNR, an election that determines the country's head of state and/or where more than 50% of the legislative body at the national level is being voted on. I can imagine there are cases of "general elections" where only a small fraction of legislative seats are at stake which wouldn't really be ITNC. --Masem (t) 14:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(closed) Proposed removal: GrammysEdit

No consensus. It seems the prediction I made in the close of last year's discussion was correct that consensus on whether the Grammys should be on ITN/R is unlikely to be achieved without consensus regarding whether, in the general case, a quality update to the relevant article on at least most occasions is a requirement for ITN/R entries. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2019 (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.

So we're now in the fourth (?) consecutive year when no-one cares enough about the Grammys to update the article sufficiently for ITN. That it's ITNR is now seriously debatable. We've had discussions, even as recently as last year, about removing it from ITN/R, but as nothing seems to have changed, and there's no appetite to actually do anything about the articles in question, we should debate it one more time. In summary, I propose removing the Grammys from ITN/R since evidence over the past four years has shown that it is of such little consequence that the articles have never been brought up to the required standard. Let it compete with all the other ITN candidates in future years. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd wait until the current nom falls off the page, and if there's clearly no signs of improvement on the article, then this is a fully reasonable action. --Masem (t) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
For reference these are the two previous discussions I found in the archive:
  • Support removal, and a "three strikes and you're out' rule to automatically remove annual items from ITN/R on three consecutive non-postings due to quality. Stephen 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't support autoremove on a three strikes approach (eg what if people did try to update it but consensus was split on the quality, during one year?) I do see no problems that if there's three years recurring event in ITNR wasn't posted, that's enough to start the discussion for removal, just not an automatic thing. --Masem (t) 00:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove, as my position was a year ago. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep from the WP:ITNR page, "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." So I fail to see where this objection is coming from. Any argument to remove something from ITNR has to argue that it's not important, and lack of updates doesn't mean it's not important. For example if we have an election in Burkina Faso and it's not posted, it could just simply be because we don't have many Burkina Faso editors. There is no drawback to having this still on ITNR either, because it just won't be posted anyway if it hasn't been updated. Banedon (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Point missed, see plenty of evidence below. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove You're missing the point. Not getting posted doesn't make it unimportant per se. It is rather symptomatic of a change in perception of the event. Annual events do rise and wan in significance. The Grammys have long been a joke to many. ghost 14:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as my position was a year ago. This is premature, we posted some Australian golf or cricket or rugby or something that was in dismal shape when it was nominated. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Four straight years of failed posting is not premature. (WaltCip, logged out) -- (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't follow your comments LaserLegs (once again). Keep because something else was posted after being in dismal shape? Grammys haven't been posted for years, no-one cares, no-one gives a shit, no-one has even commented at ITN/C or even noted its absence at the main page. It's abundantly clear that the traditional view of Grammys being worth something is dead in the water. Nothing here constitutes any kind of realistic "keep" beyond "ILIKEIT". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I just think that nominating an item for removal from ITNR before it's finished it's run at ITNC is premature. Is that clear enough? I can upload a flow chart with some stick figures to commons if need be. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Because WP:TIND. When somebody nominated it, we should encourage them to make updates. Our goal is to recruit more editors. This is a chance for somebody to help out with the topic. Our failure does not make the event unimportant. It’s importance does not depend on us. Jehochman Talk 02:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    It's continued lack of satisfactory updates over the years is symptomatic that the community do not consider it of importance, and more importantly, I'm not seeing all the US readers up in arms about it not being there. Frankly, no-one cares about the Grammys, and that's why its inclusion at ITNR is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Concur with the argument that lack of update does not mean an event suddenly loses its importance (what made it ITN/R in the first place). It simply shows that a handful of those who know how to edit are no longer interested in it or circumstances result in them not updating it it and that's quite different from what's happening in the real world. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a misconception that prior consensus existed to add items to ITNR in the first place. Check out Archive 1; there's people adding stuff unilaterally. ghost 14:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid, this is a Straw man response, completely off topic to what I said. I never claim 100 people found consensus to add the item in the first place, and even the proposal itself, in no way questions whether there was consensus to add the item in the first place. It's just seeking a new consensus to remove. If you're challenging the validity of how the item got added in the first place you should do so in a new proposal please; because it's completely different issue. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Also WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS applies. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Banedon. Regardless of any "change in perception" of the event, the Grammys are still a major event which receive significant attention from the media and public. ITNR is meant to facilitate debate over possible ITN entries by eliminating the need to argue about their importance, not their quality. --PlasmaTwa2 17:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: actually, there's plenty of coverage in reliable sources which adequately demonstrate that the general public are really becoming disinterested in this industry navel-gazing exercise. E.g. Variety examines the massive drop in viewership over the past five years, The New Yorker's analysis of it being "meaningless", while The Guardian provides a critical view of all such events. There's no doubt at all that these events (particularly the Grammys) are of nowhere near the significance or interest that they may have been five or so years ago, or even when they were surreptitiously added to the ITNR list in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the problem is not that the article didn't get updated (all the awards were marked within the hour of the ceremony), but that no editor on that page seems to care about the details related to the broader picture. At ITN everyone knows that we won't post a sports finale result without some process, and most are nominated after that's done, plus the rest of the article is fleshed out too. There's plenty of things that could have been added to the Grammys article before the ceremony beyond nominees, but no one bothered to do so. It because a waste of time to have it on ITNR if there's zero interest in updates. --Masem (t) 18:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
      • How is it a waste of time to have it on ITNR if there's zero interest in updates? In the same vein, consider the reverse situation: suppose it's not on ITNR, there's zero interest in updates, and it's nominated anyway. How is that not a waste of time? Banedon (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Consider how much of a waste of time this is. And this is only happening because Grammys was unilaterally added to the ITNR list years back. Each year it becomes less significant, nobody can be bothered to update it, nobody has noted that it's missing from the main page, it's not ITNR-worthy and constitutes a waste of effort every year that people try to insist that it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal Think TRM has hit the nail on the head. The event may be notable but the article and related articles are barely touched, winners are lazily bolded but there's no effort to make the article easy to read, getting it to the front page seems less and less of a priority. There's no reason to keep this event on ITNR if such a status has only made editors complacent or worse. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal - I can't think of many other ITN/R events where there is an utter failure to update the article year-after-year. The Super Bowl goes up within hours after the final score owing to a cavalcade of updates. The Grammys stagnate, as they have year after year. Items on ITN/R are assumed to satisfy the criterion of importance. Importance can be inferred from the amount of activity an article receives, and really, the amount of attention the event garners (which as TRM has pointed out is tumbling lower each year). TRM is the ONLY person who has responded to the nom on ITN/C since it went up two days ago! The reality is staring us in the face; no one cares enough about this event to garner its inclusion on ITN/R, much less update it sufficiently to get it posted onto the main page. (WaltCip, logged out) -- (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is also every reason to think that the Grammys themselves are decreasing in importance; viewership is consistently decreasing, I believe. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Banedon. Removing from ITN/R would simply further dis-incentivize people from updating the page. Davey2116 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I don’t see the logic in judging an event’s significance on how much work editors put into it. They seem separate things to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Here's a theorhetical - would we be inclined to post the Boat Race if TRM/other editors did little to make sure it was at quality immediately shortly after the event? I'm myself confident that would be "yes", as otherwise all we have the implied significance of the race. The routine improvement of articles for the ITNR topics are an essential part in addition to the topic's significance, and the failure for an existing ITNR to show those improvements after 3-4 years is a sign to remove. --Masem (t) 20:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't know how others interpret it, but I'd argue that if the Boat Race is significant, it'd remain significant even if nobody updates it; similarly "because the article is always updated every year!" is not an argument for significance, in fact it's more or less completely irrelevant in a discussion about whether the Boat Race should be ITNR. Banedon (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Forget abstract encyclodpeadic ideas about significance here - ITN is a service to the user base, to highlight articles of interest that pertain to current events. If there is little enough natural activity on a topic to whip the articles into shape clearly the level of interest is limited and it has no right to special exposure on the front page as of right. Users are are not interested, and ITN is not the place for fancruft of particular groups who want "their" topic covered. Nor is it a forum to tell users what they "should" be interested in. This all means there are no grounds for a guaranteed spot on ITN. 3142 (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Being on ITNR isn't being guaranteed a spot on ITN - the target article(s) still need to be updated. Banedon (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – If an important article is not being updated, that is likely an indication that there is a gap in the diversity of our user base. It is no coincidence that, as the most popular genre at the Grammys changes from Rock to Hip-Hop, interest among Wikipedia editors dwindled. We are ill-served by removing this and any incentive we can offer to new users interested in this subject. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Do space probes need to arrive in working condition to be ITNR?Edit

No interest in this at all. Status quo prevails. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2019 (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.

Currently ITNR has this line: "Arrival of probes (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". The Beresheet spacecraft arrived, it just didn't arrive in working order. Do we consider this ITNR? If not, I advocate adjusting the line to say that the probe must be in working condition. Banedon (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't think we need to change it. As I said in the nomination, sending stuff to the Moon is still a big deal. What does it matter if it is working? It did take one picture before it crashed. If it had blown up on the pad, it would be ITNR as a launch failure. It should not matter if it made it there before failing. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That discussion is a misunderstanding of what the mission objectives were. One of the objectives was to achieve lunar orbit. The fact that the aim to land safely was not achieved does not take away from that. As they said "We are the seventh country to orbit the moon and the fourth to reach the moon's surface". A spacecraft successfully attaining orbit around another astronomical body is in itself a major achievement, and should be ITN/R. The spacecraft was in working order when it arrived at the Moon. Additionally, there are likely of examples of crashed or failed spacecraft arrivals at other planets that were put on ITN, quite possibly as ITN/R. The one that I was thinking of was Beagle 2, but that might only have been on ITN when its crash site was discovered later. Maybe others can list planetary space missions where the arrival of the spacecraft in orbit (with or without a lander) was featured on ITN? Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The space exploration ITNR is far too broadly written, which is bothersome because it doesn't have a link to the discussion which approved it. Case in point - "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" has no qualification for WHAT was launched. LITERALLY anything that was launched for the purposes of exploring space would qualify, including the Beresheet. So had it failed at launch it would be ITNR, but since it failed at landing it's open for discussion? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe the space exploration section was one of the first parts of the ITNR list when it was created, and it has sort of stayed there by default and precedence. I'm fairly sure changes to it have been discussed before(and I might have even participated) but I don't recall those discussions at this moment. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Space probes are few and far between, so that any arrival, dead or alive, should make news. Maybe 20 years from now, when we routinely fly to Mars, we can reconsider the rule. — JFG talk 14:48, 12 April 2019 (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.
Return to the project page "In the news/Recurring items".