Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Proposal: remove The Boat Race from ITNR

Latest comment: 9 years ago95 comments21 people in discussion

The Boat Race was added to ITNR in May 2014 following the proposal of User:ThaddeusB. Its inclusion was contested in January 2015 by User:Calathan (who later removed the proposal). This proposal is to discuss the removal of The Boat Race from ITNR (of course, which will not invalidate it from being included at every ITNC, where it has featured last year and this year). Please comment below on the proposal. Declaring an interest: I've created and/or taken 159 of the 161 individual Boat Race articles to GA or FA, my interest here, however, is just to allow a neutrally-phrased proposal to allow yet another consensus to be formed before it all turns to rabid in-fighting, mainly between US and a few UK editors.The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removal - Interests a small group of enthusiasts and is otherwise not ITN-worthy, in my view. Jus da fax 20:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
270,000 live viewers, millions of domestic viewers and tens of million worldwide. Not sure that equates to a "small group of enthusiasts" but hey, YMMV. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose removal of a longstanding cultural event that draws wide attention and interest, per the reasoning on the initial proposal. It isn't just about the rowing- though this is a notable rowing race, more so than the World Championships. 270,000 live viewers and millions on TV is hardly a "small group of enthusiasts", at least any more than some of the other sports that are also ITNR. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose removal - historic fixture and one of the principal events on the UK's sporting calendar. Also draws a considerable interest across the world. More significant now that there is a women's equivalent on the same day. Not sure it's much more significant than the Grand National, but just as quintessentially British. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose removal which should come as no surprise. The competition has been around for 186 years and currently features some of the world's top rowers. Rowers who, in fact, take a degree or a doctorate at Oxbridge just to row in the contest, Olympians, World Champions, who actively seek to row in this unique and worldwide-followed challenge. Currently heavily sponsored by an American company, with, this year, rowers from New Zealand, The Netherlands, Austria, Australia, many from the United States and the odd one from GB, in the men's race alone demonstrates that this is more than interesting to "a small group of enthusiasts" (like the Chess Olympiad or Netball World Championships), but in this year's inaugural race on the Thames, the women's race featured a triple Olympic medallist (two of them gold, over three Olympics), an American no less, in multiple World Champion Caryn Davies. Before claiming "small group of enthusiasts", do some homework. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support removing for the same reasons as I gave in the previous discussion. This is an amateur university sporting event, open to students who happen to attend one of just two institutions. It is by no means the pinnacle of the sport of rowing. The fact that several participants have later gone on to successful rowing careers, or that it draws a fairly significant TV audience (still much less than many other events we don't post) does not make the event itself sufficiently notable for ITNR. In addition, why post one of the Oxbridge varsity sports and not the others? Putting The Varsity Match, Ice Hockey Varsity Match and The University Match on there would plainly be ridiculous. Modest Genius ^talk 18:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Moved my !vote from the section above. In addition, I find the arguments presented by those above to be unconvincing. Merely being old doesn't count for much. Having several nationalities represented is unsurprising given the demographics of Oxbridge students, and I don't see why that matters. As a Brit myself, I find the suggestion that it is somehow 'quintessentially British' to be both laughable and irrelevant to whether it should be on ITNR or not. Modest Genius ^talk 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed a good laugh. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removal - The only importance any sport has is the significance people choose to assign to it. Whether that event is a "world championship" or not and whether it is "professional" or nor is completely and utterly unimportant. A "rule" that only professional competitions matter is a false premise - no sport matters if no one pays attention. It might make decisions "easy", but that doesn't make it a good rule. ITN should reflect what the world views as important, not what a handful of editors decide is important... In the case of The Boat Race, the world views it as important. Many people from multiple countries tune in or otherwise follow the race. The same can't be said of the World rowing championships, for example. It would be flat out wrong to substitute our judgement ("only world championships matter") for that of the real world ("The Boat Race matters"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support removal - Like I said before, this is traditionalism and elitism at it's worst. Many who support this using traditionalist arguments are being hypocritical about similar longstanding sporting rivalries between ONLY 2 universities. Those using the cultural argument have a slightly better case, but it is wholly unsatisfying in that it revolves entirely around ethnocentrism. Nobody has clearly demonstrated people in the rest of the world has in interest in this besides using estimates of British media penetration. Moreover, as you can see today, this particular event has bumped off the Election Results in Nigeria which affect ALL Nigerian citizens and the entire region, not just two rowing crews or those who took a few minutes off in London to watch this event. The strongest reason for removal is that this does not fit the criterion of sporting events held by national organizations as there are obviously other rowing clubs in the United Kingdom which are not represented, and as a rule, CANNOT EVER be represented. Jeois (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You think that, apart from the rowers themselves, there were just folks who "took a few minutes off in London to watch this event"? I think the sponsors, NYB Mellon, might see things a little differently. And they're hardly just your local hardware store, are they? I'm really not sure that ITN allows for any consideration of "what's bumped off" as a result of any new posting (although that might be a familiar assessment to any conventional news outlet). I think every item is simply considered on its own merits. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I retract the poorly written phrase "not just two rowing crews... event"; my points still stand. Jeois (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Please point out other two-university events or other UK rowing events which draw 270,000 to watch live and tens of millions on TV, and have gone on for almost 200 years. I don't really understand the "elitism" point you are trying to make. If ITNR and ITN postings are made based on the number of people affected and not notability and news coverage, it would greatly limit what is posted. ITN isn't about posting events which directly or indirectly affect the largest number of people; it is about the criteria listed here. As Martinevans states, what is bumped off ITN has no bearing on what goes on it. If you want to see events from under-covered areas posted, please nominate them; but that doesn't mean other events should be excluded. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not go in circles disputing media estimates. I acknowledged your case for cultural relevance. It is unconvincing. The elitism argument is quite clear: this event does not allow for participation by other rowing clubs through a national organization (i.e. a tournament or league). Jeois (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to impugn the media estimates, I'm happy to see your reliable sources which do so. There is no requirement that posted events have wide participation. Who participates is not relevant. As I asked, please name other comparable events. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute the media estimates because that's just silly, imo. By this logic, almost every single piece that China Central Television produces should go into ITN for cultural significance. I strongly oppose that. I also oppose listing comparable sports events in ITN/R. Jeois (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking you list comparable events for their posting to ITNR; I'm just asking for them to see if it bolsters your argument. If you are unwilling to offer evidence disputing the media estimates then that part of your argument is immaterial. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You're making a straw man argument here 331dot. Of course there aren't any other events which meet the exact same criteria - which were essentially a description of the Boat Race - that you specified. But there are certainly university events which draw bigger TV audiences, just look at the NCAA. Jeois has acknowledged your points and merely indicated that they disagree with them. It would be nice if you could extend Jeois the same courtesy, rather than presenting them with a constantly shifting set of goalposts. Modest Genius ^talk 23:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which goalposts I have supposedly shifted, I was responding to their comment, just as they responded to comments here. They talked about ethnocentrism so I wanted to know about other comparable events from other areas that are not posted or even nominated. I don't see that I am denying anyone any courtesies. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct; it is not really part of my argument since I'm not making that case that low media coverage automatically means the event shouldn't be included ITN. Part of your argument says deep media penetration matters, which I find unconvincing, and I've demonstrated why I feel this way. Part of my motivation for engaging in this discussion was to clarify the criteria for inclusion of such sporting events. I've stated very clearly one criterion I would like to see being utilized; this event does not fit. We really don't know who are the best rowers in the UK at the moment (professional, university or amateur), based on this event, do we? Jeois (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removal- One reason the Boat Race is so significant that I think has been understated is that this is not really just a university competition. Oxford and Cambridge are home to some of the best rowers from all over the world at any level, with the event frequently featuring Olympic medalists. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OBJECT to wording; we need not find consensus to support in order to remove the item. ITNR works by assuming consensus exists. If consensus to keep is not shown, the item is to be removed. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

So every time someone who dislikes an ITNR subject initiates a discussion to remove it, those who support it must show up to keep it from being removed? I disagree that the onus should be on supporters. --331dot (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not how things work on Wikipedia. In the absence of new consensus, the status quo remains in place. The Boat Race was added to ITN/R per consensus and will remain there unless there is consensus to remove. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove. The item is less followed than the Army-Navy Game and as elitist as fox hunting. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the Army-Navy game was played in a facility that can accomodate 250,000+ people, especially since the largest capacity football stadium in the US can only accomodate around 110,000. --331dot (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The Boat Race is not played in such a 'facility' either. It is held on a long stretch of public river - there is no fixed 'capacity' for members of the public standing along its length. Hardly a fair comparison. Modest Genius ^talk 17:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The original comparison was entirely bogus and without any verifiable evidence. Hardly a fair comparison. And it's indisputable that over a quarter of a million watched the Boat Race live, plus millions live on televisions around the world. Still I note that you had no problem with the foul comparison with fox-hunting, which is, after all, even more disgraceful and "hardly a fair comparison". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll see your social indignation and raise you an elitist inequality. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Weak Remove I think the elitism argument is fair - this is a race that only members of teams from two specific schools can participate in, and as such, is not really a competition. The Army-Navy game is an apt analogue as well as other NCAA football rivalries (Ohio Stats vs Michigan, Texas vs Texas AM, etc.), and basically for bragging rights. Contrast that to championship playoffs that have a wide range of initial competing teams. The spectator/viewership numbers don't really matter too much here, nor the long history of the event. While it might be considered the highest level of rowing sport (short of the Olympics), we also don't need to cover every sport out there under ITN (which already dominates ITNR). --MASEM (t) 01:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Support removal. Let's be clear here about what ITNR is meant to represent. If this event was not ITNR and was nominated every year it happens, will it make it onto ITN? I think it would be a coin toss, or perhaps there's probably a higher likelihood that it will not make it since it is such a niche subject. In my view this is a typical event that does not meet ITNR criteria. Colipon+(Talk) 03:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removal, although it's great that the articles are high quality and well-maintained. Elitism is a red herring as are any claim standards; the only thing that should matter is popularity / interest. I'm not British so can't say for sure, but [1] seems to imply 5-6 million people watched. I could be wrong, but that sounds like about the amount of interest in, say, a big Premier League game? Which most definitely would *not* show up on ITN. Yes, there's something to be said for throwing a bone to smaller sports, but eh. SnowFire (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for info, most popular Prem league match last month was viewed by 1.7 million viewers, according to BARB. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment regarding elitism do those who keep banging the elitism drum believe that the 6.2+ million Brits who watched in on television and the 270,000 who watched it on the banks of the Thames are all elitist? If so, that's a very naive understanding of elitism. For those who missed it, the race is sponsored by an American bank and includes Olympic and World champion rowers, so yes, from a sporting and sponsorship point of view, it has elite rowers and elite business interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's the participation aspect, not viewership. It's a closed event, for all purposes. The comparison to school rivalry college football games like Army vs Navy is apt here, since the viewership numbers are similarly high; it's still a "closed" event. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  - Not at all, you simply have to be a student at either Cambridge or Oxford to participate in the Boat Race. I'm not certain where this sudden definition of a "closed event" comes from, I don't see many teams from Europe participating in the World Series, nor clubs from India playing for the Superbowl... Oh, and one assumes to represent the Army, you have to be in the Army? Closed event. Anyway, nice swerve on the real meat, once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    - It is, for all purposes, the equivalent of navel gazing; two long-time rival schools having a competition between their rowing teams. Yes, it draws a lot of attention and coverage, but it is still just navel gazing. And there's plenty of other events we don't cover that would be the same - for example, we don't post the results of the MLB All-Star game or the NFL Pro Bowl, because that is navel gazing at what is treated as light-hearted contests between players. The other events involve numerous teams and players that play often enough to narrow down the final teams to the best of all teams/players in that season for a final game/series, while here, while it is usually the case that we are talking about the best rowers in the world, the contest is not determining that. It is a very closed-sphere event on its impact to the world at large. Just because it is a tradition and long-standing one does not mean it is necessary news. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      - You're doing a very good job of ignoring all the points I'm making and continuing with your own odd stance. I give in, you and the others win. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
        Sorry, Rambler. We are seeking consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
        Tell me about it. Now we are American Wikipedia, this sort of thing is impossible to convince people who think we have a canoe race up the Thames from time to time with a bunch of super-elitist talentless-but-rich toffs that only appeals to a handful of fox-hunting twats in Surrey. The crass and sometimes deliberate ignorance is too much for me to care for this discussion any longer. I'll get back to making decent articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Weak removal If this was an inclusion discussion, I would advocate not adding it to ITN/R due to the many reasons listed above. It is a non-championship game, between two amateur teams (as in non-professional), that has little encyclopedic relevance besides its history and a list of who won each year. Though, The Boat Races 2015 is of especially good quality, even if it does come off more as a news article than encyclopedia article. This event may have been posted this year even if it was not on ITN/R. Mamyles (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Frankly, I believe because of the high quality of the article, we should allow for it to be showcased on the main page under "ongoing", just to provide a link to the article. I am of the view that the 'blurb' structure of ITN is generally detrimental to showcasing high quality articles and is the root cause of most major disputes on ITN. But this is a long-term view that true ITN reform needs to take place rather than having separate discussions over unclear criteria. Colipon+(Talk) 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Article quality is not a sole criteria for posting an ITN article. An article needs to both be in the news (sufficiently notable) and of decent quality. Both of these criteria are given weight in the subjective posting discussion. I would not agree with simply posting links to sports events in the ITN template. If an article merits posting, it should have a blurb. An exception is recent deaths and ongoing events, as decided by previous consensus, which I do not entirely agree with. Mamyles (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removal This really have no business being in int/r, if we really want to have rowing in here, we shouls include world rowing championship instead. SeraV (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
By all means propose it. We can have zero, one, two or more items for rowing at ITN/R if a consensus agrees. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

How about a whole front page? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removal, weakly - I've gone back and forth on this, as should be obvious based on my previous proposal to remove it and then my withdrawing of that proposal. However, my current thinking is that this shouldn't be an ITN/R item. It seems to me that the competition is heavily watched in Britain, but of niche interest elsewhere. It also feels less significant than many of the other sporting events at ITN/R, which are the championship or largest events in a season of competition. Calathan (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, it's far less popular than netball. Netball, like the Boat Race, and Superbowl, and any other niche sport, is of "niche interest". When did "niche interest" become a prohibitive factor for ITNR? Chess is "of niche interest", Canadian football (!!) is of "niche interest", but no, let's all focus on the Boat Race. Good work one and all! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's that tiny niche, where the cox sits. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we had a pretty comfortable seat, albeit narrow. It did make my back hurt when the fucking incompetent rowers twitched and rocked out of time. But hey "GO CANADIAN FOOTBALL". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Many events could be removed from the list if the criteria was a large worldwide audience. A sporting event doesn't have to be a championship to have cultural significance, as this race does. It isn't just about the rowing. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I do think the list of ITN/R sports is too long now, so the argument that other things could be removed doesn't change my opinion. I agree that there are other things on the list that probably should be removed (e.g., netball). Calathan (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As I tell Nergaal below, removing "lesser known" sports could present some systemic bias issues. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That's true, and we should consider each sport individually and objectively before removing them from ITN/R. However, that is irrelevant to whether The Boat Race should be ITN/R. Removing The Boat Race will still leave British sports represented by football (soccer), cricket, tennis, golf, rugby, horse racing, etc., so I don't see how removing this one event could lead to systemic bias. Calathan (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Systemic bias isn't just relating to nations; it also relates to subject matter and people's familiarity with it. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the ITNR list being too long, please see my comment in the section below. Two of the five items on "In the news" are currently ELEVEN DAYS OLD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removal and I would be fine with removing some more of the lesser known sports. Meanwhile, an e-sport event drawing over 20 mil viewers didn't even get the ITNC pass, while at only 8 mil this gets the ITNR pass. Nergaal (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing "lesser known" sports would lead to some systemic bias issues. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so a good reason for removing this is "because you want something else on ITNR"? Great argument. (And it wasn't "only 8 mil", it was 6.2 million in the UK alone, plus worldwide audiences) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I am saying, if higher-impact events don't even pass ITNC, then lower-impact shouldn't get a ITNC bye via ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removal as per my post in the purple box above that was archived by ThaddeusB. HAdG (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you ever get round to creating an article about the race you consider more significant than the Boat Race that started in the 1960s? I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

On my to-do list. I actually have a life outside wikipedia too, perhaps unlike others. HAdG (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removal. Domestic inter-varsity sport should never be considered to reach the level of world-wide importance to qualify it for ITNR. It's true that the boat race has viewing figures and tradition on its side, but less so than, for example, X Factor, Top Gear or pardoning the Christmas turkey. Formerip (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please show where there is a requirement for "world-wide importance" to be on ITNR. If so, most of the list can probably be jettisoned as very little of it has "world-wide importance". 331dot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I'm having a hard time seeing how the arguments in favor of removing this are not just IDONTLIKEIT. I don't particularly like rowing and only know what I read here about this race, but clearly seems to be a significant event culturally and within the sport. There are no requirements of worldwide importance or large worldwide audiences; there are no requirements of only having professional sports or top-level competitions; something can be significant without being such a competition. It is very disappointing that the significance of this is being dismissed so easily. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There are no particular requirements for ITNR at all, just the fact that it is supposed to feature events that are supposedly a shoo-in. The fact that a significant number of editors don't think this should be on the list speaks for itself on that front, and any cogent reason given is valid. Formerip (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What is speaks to is that the logical reasons for this being here are not being understood, for whatever reason. Aside from that we have or end up with a decent article on the subject that can be put on the main page and help people learn about something which is our mission- we should want to post this sort of thing. Very disappointing. If an almost 200 year old annual event between two ancient universities which draws much attention and top talent in a sport doesn't merit being here, I guess I'm not sure what does. --331dot (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of the "logical reasons" not being understood. It's something that is in the eye of the beholder. If some people don't see it (and, I have to say, I'm one of those), then they don't and that's all there is to it. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That should be one of the reasons we're having this discussion. You're saying "there are no requirements" for this or that. I'm asking what are the criteria then? The significance is not clearly defined or understood by all. I'm sure many in favor of removal would agree the article is well-written and does mean something culturally to some, but you're just repeating the traditionalist points yet again. TV viewership seems to matter to some, although I find it ridiculous since any channel with a global presence can rack up large numbers, but if this is a criterion then what is the threshold? 5 million viewers? How many people have to gather/assemble at an event? 250k? If so, there are a whole litany of events which aren't ITN-worthy, e.g. Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival,2014–15 CBA season both of which happened recently, and we've given you plenty of other similar examples. I understand it may be interesting to some, but what are the criteria other than because you like it? Jeois (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste your time or mine restating the reasons this is currently on the ITNR list that are already written here and on the original discussion leading to its inclusion. As I said, I don't particularly like this subject, but is usually has a good article each year and it is about a notable subject with significant interest that readers might want to learn more about. I don't understand what is wrong with "traditionalism" or even how that is relevant. Even the Super Bowl is "tradition", and is only 50 years old as opposed to the almost 200-year old history of this race between two universities that have existed for hundreds of years. Your aforementioned music festival is only 16 years old. Some even seem to admit it would probably merit posting through the regular ITNC process- which, if it did every year, would mean it should be ITNR. I really don't have much more to say; it is disappointing that the reasons to include this are not understood and so easily dismissed. Are we an encyclopedia? Or just about posting what is popular and widely known? 331dot (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have some agreement, at least between the two of us, that this shouldn't simply be a popularity contest; however, the majority-view here seems to indicate that this is a criterion. I don't like the Super Bowl showing up on ITN either, but its age shouldn't matter. I'm sure if you gave me enough time, I can think of some event that people have been doing much longer but nobody wants to know about. I don't like American football, but I was just talking to an European who watches it. I don't think we're going to get much support for not including it; that seems to be the consensus. To answer your question, traditionalism is doing something only because it has always been done a particular way, and I find that incredibly inadequate as justification for anything. Jeois (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Since there have been some requests to explain what the ITN/R criteria are (at least should be) and there have been some attacks against "too much sport" in general recently and here, let me try to explain. To people who don't follow sports, or a particular sport, yes it is mostly meaningless. To a person who doesn't follow politics, an election in some small, distant country is basically meaningless. And to a person who doesn't feel an intrinsic value to all human life, a natural disaster that kills a few people is basically meaningless. In other words, we should never be saying "I think care about this, so it is meaningless." Instead we should be judging the impact of the event to people who do care as evidenced by reliable source coverage.

When it comes to sports, many people plan their lives around their favorite team plays. They purposely avoid conflicting social engagements and may find ways to get out of family events when a conflict arises. When the team has a big game coming up, they are distracted and unable to be productive at work. When the team loses, they have trouble sleeping, thinking about what could have been done differently. When the team wins, they are elated. In other words, sports really do matter - they have a big impact on the real lives of real people. You can say this shouldn't be the case all the you, but you can't deny that it is the case. There is a reason that one of the 4-5 sections of a typical daily newspaper is devoted entirely to sports coverage. Think about it: ~20-25% of all RS coverage is devoted to sports.

So, what should the requirements for a particular sport to appear on ITN? The answer is that the sport/league has a large number fans, thus creating an effect on a large number of lives and the event attracts attention from those who would not normally follow the sport. (For example, championship typically draw in large number of people who would not normally watch the sport. This can be measured any number of ways from viewership figures, to press coverage, to advertiser sponsorship.) With very few exceptions, it will always be true that the impact a sporting event is almost entirely domestic in nature. Demanding huge amounts of international interest, ignores the very real and significant impact a sport has on its "home country".

If we are being honest, a mudslide that kills 20 people in Pakistan or the next president of El Salvador has no real impact on the lives of an average American, Australian, or Brit, yet we post these things because we acknowledge their importance to people in the region. Similarly, we should post sports that have a large impact on their home regions.

An ITN/R listing does not reflect greater importance - just that an event is regularly scheduled. The only requirement for ITN/R listing is that the event is likely to be posted each time it occurs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that sports events should be in ITN/R. However, I also believe that not all sports events are equally notable, and that not all sports events are notable enough to post. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, lest we migrate toward posting the results of every match globally. I, and probably many other removal comments, think the line falls somewhat short of this event, at least in regard to ITN/R inclusion. Mamyles (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a fair position to take (although naturally I come down on the other side). My comment is not aimed at all opposes, but rather the specific unreasonable arguments some offer such as "not professional", "not popular enough outside the UK", "should be replaced with rowing World Championship" or "too elitist" (and also the recent comments (mostly at ITN/C) that argue sports don't matter and/or are over-represented). None of those things matter - what matters is the importance people assign to the event. Here is a pretty good article explaining The Boat Race's appeal in the UK. Here's another and the fact that this made national news in connection with the Boat Race shows in a way just how wide reaching the impact fo the race is. Entire books have been written about some of the individual races: [2][3][4] --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I think it misses the points that we need to decide what is and isn't significant to post every year, and that we specifically are deciding if The Boat Race generates enough interest to be posted every year. I think it is a reasonable argument to say that things of interest mainly in one country should fall on the not-always-posted side of the line, and it doesn't make sense to me why you dismiss that specific argument as invalid (I personally don't think just being of interest in one country is enough on its own to exclude something, but is one factor to consider in making a decision on whether something should always be posted or not). Things that are of interest worldwide just seem like they naturally will have more total coverage and more total interest than things of interest primarily in one country. Furthermore, I think specifically for The Boat Race, as it isn't a championship of a league with competition taking place between multiple teams over multiple matches, it seems like the coverage and interest over a whole year would be less than many of the sports in ITN/R. Posting something like the Super Bowl of the Premier League championship represents not only the interest in the final game, but the interest from all the games in the whole season, and all the other coverage the leagues get over the whole year (e.g., who signed contracts with what teams, or what not). While I'm sure there is coverage related to The Boat Race outside covering the race itself, I don't think it is on the same scale as all the coverage a major sports league gets for a whole season. In my personal opinion, when you combine the factors of it being of primary interest in one country and that it isn't the championship of a season of competition, I think it falls just barely on the not-always-post side of where I would put the line for ITN. Calathan (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of what you say is fair. Certainly, the "a championship is really a posting for the entire season's worth of coverage" is an angle worth considering. There are many other events on the list (e.g. Kentucky Derby, The Ashes, Boston Marathon, 24 Hours of Le Mans, etc.) that aren't season-culminating championships, though.

However, the interest to primarily one country argument is generally disregarded on ITN/C (We even offer the following advice: Please do not complain about an event 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.) so I don't think it has any merit in an ITN/R decision either. There are very few sports with meaningful "worldwide" followings, including most of the ITN/R list. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I know that being of interest to only one country is listed as an argument not to make at ITN/C, but in practice it is an argument people do make, so I'm not sure the guideline really reflects a true consensus. It seems more like wishful thinking on the part of people who think that shouldn't be considered. Calathan (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, people make invalid arguments in Wikipedia discussions of all kinds all the time. That is part of the reason we have admins to assess consensus and not vote counting robots. An admin can and should dismiss any "of interest only in X" vote at ITN/C wen assessing consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

In the case of the Boat Race, assuming it's "of interest to only one country" is completely ignorant. It's an international event from the rowers to the viewers to the sponsors. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that no one outside Britain cares about it, but I think it is primarily of interest in Britain. I really think you are overestimating the worldwide interest because you yourself live in the country where it is held and are a fan of the race. It's true that I can't personally speak for the popularity of The Boat Race in most countries, and if any Wikipedians from other countries do think The Boat Race is popular where you live and could chime in, I could be convinced that I'm wrong. However, I don't think you can speak for the popularity in those countries either, and instead are just stating what you want to be true because you are a fan of the race and want it to be popular. I'm very certain it isn't at all popular in the US despite the fact that some rowers from the US participate (rowing in general is not a mainstream sport here). The fact that the best rowers in other countries go to Britain to compete in the race doesn't mean it is popular in those countries (in fact, I expect the opposite is true, and that people go to Britain to compete in The Boat Race because rowing is far more popular there than in their own countries). About a US company sponsoring it, that is because they do business in the UK, not because they think sponsoring it will somehow earn them money in the US. Calathan (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, rowing is vastly popular in small countries like the U.S., Australia, Germany, Italy etc etc, they want to compete in the Boat Race because of its hnique challenge and history. I give up, you and so many of yiur compatriots are just guessing and making stuff up about this that it has become overwhelming. You all win, honestly it's not that important to me, just keep on speculating, guessing, making stuff up and posting amateur women's basketball. Vive la difference, vive American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes; definite systemic bias issues here. It's too bad, really, that a lack of knowledge about this or simple dismissal of arguments carries so much weight. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding my comments here. You needn't explain the cultural significance of sports. I actually agree some sporting events should be included, but the question has always been: which ones? Again, I would oppose removal of the Super Bowl even though I don't watch it every year or particularly care about the results. I'm asking for more clearly defined criteria so we can stop arguing about this, or at the very least, have guidelines so we can focus our discussion on those instead of something arbitrary like media market penetration. For those supporting this particular event to be ITN/R simply because this has some kind of cultural impact, I would like to understand the methodology for which we decide the threshold of significance/notability. A large number of people going to a park and smoking marijuana has a cultural impact; next week, I don't expect someone to create an article summarizing these events occurring on the same date and nominate it for ITN/C, and since it happens every year, we wind up listing it ITN/R. A National Rifle Association conference draws tons of people, but nobody outside of the US cares about this (nor should they, imo). I can still find you a bunch of reliable sources that explain its impact to Americans. Therefore, I'm arguing that this cannot be the only criterion, although I agree it should be considered. Along these lines of reasoning, please don't be so dismissive of critiques of the inclusiveness of this event. When you get down to it, it's a rivalry between 2 university clubs and nobody else is represented, and a rule, they can never be. Jeois (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So a new rule, competitions with limited entry are not allowed on ITNR? You draw the line there, rather than, say, the World Series with, what, one competitor from outside the U.S.? You and many others keep conveniently overlooking the fact that anyone can participate in this event as long as they study at Cambridge or Oxford, and that's why it has so many international elite rowers involved and why it's sponsored by an American bank. But time for bed on this discussion. Take it from ITNR and cherish the results, enjoy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you gave an example of a professional sports event which is organized by a national organization. (I've stated this criterion at least 4 times now; when are you finally going to get it?) Like the Boat Race, the players come from all over the world, but the difference is their appearance in the World Series actually shows they belong to a baseball team that is considered the best in the country through competition in a league. I'm not overlooking participation at all; it is exactly my objection. Now, we're getting into the realm of sports scholarships and barriers of entry into Oxbridge... but we can't have every American college football rivalry all listed ITNR. Moreover, you're the one who nominated the women's amateur basketball item you mentioned in a response above Jeois (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The only legitimate criteria are the two I outlined. Anything else is an artificial attempt to make things "easy" that doesn't reflect reality. Just because something is professional, doesn't make it more important. Nor does larger number of eligible participants. Those are things you may personally think make something important, but evidently the world at large does not strictly follow that reasoning. If the Olympics were still strictly amateur only, no one would doubt their worthiness of inclusion. The Ashes is a contest between two nations and is ITN/R. When we decide to make up our own criteria to decide what is important, we are no longer reflecting the world (neutrality), but rather substituting our (non-neutral) judgement. If we are going to override the world's judgement on importance, we better have a damn good reason to do so... The comparison to smoking pot or a NRA meeting is rather silly - those things may be important to their participants, but certainly are not followed by millions of fans or covered in hundreds of reliable sources.

I can't draw a firm line as to what is worth posting and what is not. It is a continuum from the World Cup/Olympics down to whatever we decide is the minimum impact we will accept. If you think the Boat Race is on the wrong side of the line, that is fine; what I am against is creating artificial rules like "professional only" or "top level only" or "wide participation only" in attempt to make decisions easier. The edge should be decided by consensus at ITN/C. ITN/R is only meant to reflect that something is likely to pass every year based on history, in order to avoid rehashing the same debate every year - nothing more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removal – What User:ThaddeusB said. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose removal Many of the comments made here are incredibly wrong and invalid.

"Interests a small group of enthusiasts." The race is watched by hundreds of millions of people on television and hundreds of thousands watch it along the River Thames each year. It is one of the most important events in the annual British sporting calendar and has been televised for nearly a hundred years.

"This traditionalism and elitism at it's worst." It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to right great wrongs. News stories should not be made to pass "ethic tests" based on how editors' feelings about the event. The vast majority of those who watch the race, either in person or on television, have never come anywhere near studying at Oxford or Cambridge, yet are interested nonetheless.

"Why post one of the Oxbridge varsity sports and not the others?" Because this is, by far, the most famous, popular and prestigious of them all. I agree it would be wrong to post the others.

"Heavily watched in Britain, but of niche interest elsewhere." Yes, it is hugely important in the UK, as you say, but not necessarily elsewhere. Many events are like this, though (even think about just the Super Bowl). WP:ITNC specifically states "do not complain about an event only relating to a single country ... this applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." If anything, why would you want to remove something that is "heavily watched" and important in Britain? Because you do not like it?

If these kinds of support comments from editors were removed, which closers should do, because closers focus on the quality of arguments, not just on the number of votes, it seems quite clear that there is consensus to keep the event at ITNR. In other words, the supports here are simply from those who do not like the event for personal reasons, which is a shame. The cries of elitism are somewhat embarrassing. Users should learn that items are not added or removed due to their personal feelings. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You have indicated an oppose to removing the event, but have not included any reasoning behind that. Why do you believe that this event should be in ITN/R?

In regard to your comments about judging consensus, that some editors do not have fully articulated rationals is to be expected on both sides of any Wikipedia discussion. I would invite you to pose questions/comments to such opinions directly, perhaps with a {{Reply}} or {{Ping}}, rather than snipe at them in a TL;DR discussion. Mamyles (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, the IP's response to the remove !votes are pretty clearly the IP's reasons for inclusion. (The race is watched by hundreds of millions of people, the most famous, popular and prestigious, it is hugely important in the UK, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removal - Yes, everybody have heard of it and before another Oxbridger start to rain down on me because its part of the British Tradition that most of the Daily Mailites care about as well as more than the equivalent population of the United States watch it but seriously, do you think people really care who won? I don't ever recall who won in the last 5 years neither do I really care - if we have to include rowing, we may as well include Olympic rowing, considering in the UK, this is what people seem to care more of than the Boat Race. From somebody I know who did rowing at university, people go there because of the party atmosphere and the razzmatazz like a non-endurance racing fan would to Le Mans for the same reason.

I really think the mistake we are making with this argument is not starting this post whilst in the middle of their exams or in their summer holidays, because I assure you with any Oxbridge topics, they argue less when they have their exams to be occupied with or recovering from their hangover from their Thailand drunken antics. Donnie Park (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Good, sensible, neutrally toned, well argued statement. Not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) If things were posted based on whether people cared about it or not, very little would be posted. ITNR is not a survey of who is interested in the topics nominated, but a recognition of importance- and a longstanding highly watched event(both live and otherwise) that is between two ancient universities is clearly important. People do not participate in the Boat Race to "party"(in fact, people attend Oxford/Cambridge just to participate in the race) Olympic events do not get their own postings because the Olympics are posted themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Heads of state/former heads of state being sentenced

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Given that the sentencing of Mohamed Nasheed was posted last month, and the sentencing of Mohamed Morsi is clearly going to be posted soon, I propose that we add "Heads of state or former heads of state being sentenced to prison or jail time" to ITNR. Everymorning talk 00:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty normal that the leaders of a Coup d'état either murder or imprison the democratically elected politicians they overthrew. Should that be news in a neutral way effectively taking the side od the putschists as was done in the Morsi case, or should it also highlight that the democratically elected politician was a victim of an unjust trial? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it. The purpose of ITN/R is to avoid duplicate discussions taking place each year (or other period) for something that the level of notability varies little each time. In the case of further heads of state being convicted of a crime, notability could vary widely. Someone removed for office (democratically or otherwise) for their crimes is pretty different than say a former president being convicted for possession of illegal drugs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to me, as Thaddeus states. --331dot (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Farcical elections

Latest comment: 9 years ago27 comments13 people in discussion

Okay, a quick straw poll. We have the good old "heads of state" elections as being ITNR, yet right now we have Sudanese general election, 2015 and Kazakhstani presidential election, 2015, both of which have a substantial shadow of doubt cast over their legitimacy. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but at the same time, several editors have expressed concern over simply reporting the results with caveating them with the overwhelming RS-based statements that they are questionable. Do we caveat our blurbs for these or do we simply report the results? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If it can be done accurately and neutrally, caveat the blurbs. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Would this only apply to elections of leaders not supported by the US government, or will actions of US-supported leaders who came to power after a Coup d'état against the democratically elected leaders they deposed of in the future also get the caveat that this was an unjust action of an illegitimate government? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If adopted, it would naturally reflect whatever the majority of RS say - that is the nature of neutrality, as defined by Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

majority RS opinion gives undue weight to US media. Do you want to be neutral or present the US point of view? LoveToLondon (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Tough question. Neutrality means reporting the majority RS opinion (weighed by relevance and quality of the source, of course, not just by number). If nearly all sources from a variety of backgrounds report a given election as a farce, it was be decidedly non-neutral for the article not to report that too. However, nuances are hard in a 10 word blurb. Maybe "in a highly criticized election" is somewhat OK, but "in an election widely criticized as unfair and illegitimate" is probably going to far. Maybe "in an election described as undemocratic" would work. Election does imply democratic, so it does make some sense to point out when one is viewed as not so. Failing to do so is potentially non-neutral since the blrb could imply something (democratic) not supported by the RS consensus.

Really, my opinion is that elections where the outcome was never in the slightest bit of doubt (at any point in the process, not just on election eve) are simply not newsworthy. For that reason I would prefer ITN/R didn't give an automatic notability pass. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Trial implies fair, so why didn't you complain about the Morsi blurb? LoveToLondon (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I didn't complain about any of the three. The discussion has now been opened, and I am interested in helping reach a consensus on the subject, so I commented now... The purpose of this discussion is restricted to elections - I have no reason to mention trials. But, to answer your off topic example, if a trial is roundly criticized as unfair that should probably also be mentioned in on any blurb on said trial. Just because we haven't done so in the past (which is also the case for farce elections), doesn't mean we shouldn't do so going forward. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we stick to impartiality and let the ITNR remain as it is. We may have a precedent here. The lede dection of the target article article should state any controversies [if present] and that would suffice for the readers. ITNR ought to stick to a NPOV. Ali Fazal (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV means sticking to what RS say. If most RS mention something negative about subject X and Wikipedia does not, then Wikipedia is not NPOV. That is precisely what makes things tricky here - leaving out a crucial detail might be non-neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What sources would be considered RS when judging elections in countries like Russia? I would't consider sources from countries that have sanctions against Russia as RS, since they tend to follow the bias of their governments. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought my answer was clear - all sources normally considered reliable for general purposes. Incidentally, newspapers (at least in the US) are much more likely to reflect the biases of their readers than government position (although the two will be the same often). Being Wikipedia neutral means following the majority of sources, not trying to divine some bias-free truth. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You are saying ITN should follow the bias of readers in a country that has only 5% of the worlds population. What would happen if the majority of sources in China would claim that an election in Russia was fair, disagreeing with US media? Would you just claim that Chinese sources are not reliable to push the bias of US readers to ITN? LoveToLondon (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I am saying Wikipedia (including ITN) always follows the majority of sources. I never said anything about any particular country. "All sources normally considered reliable for general purposes" means all. It is you who wishes to make judgements based on the country of origin, not me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ITN only gets a single sentence to describe an event. We aren't obliged to include everything that is mentioned in reliable sources and, in practical terms, we can't. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hence why my comment begins with "tough question". Obviously, if we had the space of an article it would be easy. Also obviously, we shouldn't be purposely deceptive just to save space. The open question is, does the word "election" imply democratic such that when one is not democratic it requires clarification to maintain neutrality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alifazal. When we post election results on WP:ITN, we never claim that every or each election is fair. Let's just report the results and leave the fairness to the article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We should (1) remove all currently listed items from ITNR entirely, and (2) if the community still wants it, add a field to the ITN nom template asking people also to vote if they supprt whether the item should be on ITN. Then we won't have the current EU system foisted on the UK without the long-promised national referendum which has never been held. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You are free to propose ending or altering ITNR at any time; that's not what this discussion is about. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for election blurbs to comment on the legitimacy or fairness of the election; that's what the article is for, so people can decide for themselves by reviewing the reaction to the election. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Well referenced criticism is itself notable and interesting. If it can be included in a pithy manner, go for it. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
A thing to keep in mind is that just because an event is one that meets ITNR does not mean that it is automatically posted, even if the article is in good shape; mind you, this thus means the ITNC should be focused on why the one instance is not appropriate for posting, rather than the ITNR part in general. This seems like the place where an IAR approach is best instead of trying to crave out specific exemptions that would be difficult to codify. So say if an election in a country is known to be a farce by and large, and someone makes the ITNC about it, we can determine that "No, everyone in the world knew this was a result because of XYZ, so we don't have to post". No need to change ITNR for the limited cases that might come from this. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The entire ITNR on elections of sovereign states does not make any sense and does not have widespread consensus. ITN is "in the news" - we should be posting elections which are "in the news." Elections of large countries like France and Indonesia is usually "in the news", but an election in the Maldives or Solomon Islands or Kazakhstan is really not "in the news." At least, I can understand why someone might be irritated that NCAA 'March Madness' has to go through reams of discussion every year and is often rejected but an election of a pacific island somehow gets an automatic pass. We give undue weight to elections in ITN. Colipon+(Talk) 17:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Then suggest a change to the ITNR listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I have attempted three times already. The result each time is no consensus = no change, but the majority seem to be opposed to status quo. However people cannot agree on how to fix it. Colipon+(Talk) 20:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Try harder. Or realise you're in the wrong, consensus-speaking, and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
If reliable sources cast doubt on the fairness of an election, NPOV requires us to reflect that. Of course, often the reliable sources don't make a judgment on whether or not it was fair - they merely report the different claims. That complicates matters, but still if the fairness of the election is seriously contested NPOV requires us to note that. Obviously the exact wording of blurbs must be decided on a case-by-case basis. It will also be important to take account of a wide range of reliable sources from different nations, in order to minimise the risk of bias. Neljack (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove World's Fairs

Latest comment: 8 years ago25 comments12 people in discussion

There's been a pretty robust discussion going on at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Expo 2015. I feel like when you're at the point that most of the supports are because the opening of a World's Fair is listed as an ITN/R item, rather than because there's any actual evidence that this particular Expo is independently notable, it's time to reconsider ITN/R standing. World's Fairs used to be great spectacles, but they have declined dramatically in importance. Expo 2015 has received relatively little attention outside regional media (Italy, Malta, etc.) and business news. Nothing has actually happened at the Expo (aside from a few protests) and nothing is really expected to happen; if something really notable does happen, we could post it to ITN. But this seems like a good time to revisit having the World's Fair on ITN/R, because the evidence suggests this event just isn't big news. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Support removal. I was considering starting such a discussion myself. These events just do not have great importance anymore, given that the Internet and other modern technologies allow people to learn about upcoming technologies and new things in ways which could not be done before. I also suspect few people outside of its location could name the location of this year's event or even that it was going on, nor could they name the locations of past fairs. It gets little attention. Removing it from ITNR does not mean it cannot be nominated at ITNC, and if there are good reasons to, it will be. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removal - The last Universal Exposition, Expo 2010, attracted a record 73 million visitors, more than any Olympic games, and more than the entire population of the UK or Italy. The next one, Expo 2020, will be held in Dubai and sure to be spectacular. By visitor numbers, Universal Expositions are the largest events in the world and are held only once every five years. ITN/R is heavily biased toward sporting events, many barely noticed outside of their host country or a small number of enthusiasts (World Snooker Championship, anyone? Netball World Championships? Japan Series?). World's Fairs are more influential than probably 90% of the sporting events listed on ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what my opinion is about removing or retaining, but the visitor figures may be a bit of a red herring, since what we are talking about (per the article) is the number of visitors to a 5.2 km sq area of a major city over a seven month period. I don't think it's easy to work our how many millions would be a really impressive number, and it's obviously not something that can easily be compared to a sporting event, say. Formerip (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zanhe: What exactly do these events influence? 331dot (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

See my comment below. As for the visitor numbers, of course they're not comparable to sporting events. Most visitors are out of town, which means a significant commitment in money and time, unlike watching a sporting event on TV, which involves no more than a flick of finger. The fact that the expos could attract huge crowds over such an extended period of time attests to their influence. -Zanhe (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that ITN/R has a tremendous bias toward sports that I think should be addressed, I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep posting World's Fairs that nobody cares about or pays attention to. And FormerIP is quite right about the visitor numbers; of course they're going to be very large if that's the metric used to measure them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of argument. If nobody cared about these events, why would 73 million people incur significant expenses to visit the Expo last time it was held (the ticket alone cost dozens of dollars, not to mention hotel and transport)? And why are hundreds of governments willing to spend millions of dollars to participate in them? -Zanhe (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You're talking about a months-long event in a city of 15 million on the most densely populated coast in the world in a country with a population exceeding a billion. Neat how you totally leave those vital facts out. Plus there's no independent auditing of that number. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So people from countries with large populations count less than people from smaller ones? That's a nonsensical argument. By your logic, we should remove Super Bowl because it's mostly watched by people in a country with a large TV-addicted population? -Zanhe (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove this sort of thing is a hangover from the nineteenth century, I agree with 331dot entirely, so I won't repeat his arguments. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Remove, World's Fairs were relevant when most of the world didn't know the rest of the world existed. No longer true. I honestly couldn't even tell you, in my lifetime, that I've seen any real coverage of "Expo" or its brethren. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I don't want to spend too much time on this discussion as it's so inconsequential: Expo 2015 is unlikely to be posted as the article is such a mess, and the next Expo is five years away, during which a lot of things may change. What's striking is lots of opponents (here and on ITN thread) base their opinions on their ignorance about the events, as if the only events that matter were those that they can watch on TV, which is why we have so many sporting events on ITN/R in the first place. Look at these pictures:

Vasco da Gama Bridge, Europe's longest bridge, built to coincide with Expo '98 in Lisbon
Gare do Oriente, Lisbon's transport hub and one of the world's largest train stations, designed by Calatrava for Expo 98
Puente del Alamillo, designed by Calatrava for Seville Expo '92
Cartuja 93, one of the largest science parks in Europe, converted from Expo 92 grounds
China Art Museum, Asia's largest, built for Expo 2010
Power Station of Art, China's answer to Tate Modern, converted from an Expo 2010 pavilion

They are just a few of the more visible legacies from recent World's Fairs. Entire cities can be transformed or even created by a World's Fair, such as Portugal's Parque das Nações with tens of thousands of residents, which was created from the relatively small Expo 98 (which would not be covered by the ITN/R as it was not a Universal Exposition like Expo 2015 or 20). And Vancouver was transformed by its Skytrain metro system, a legacy of Expo 86, again a minor expo not covered by ITN/R. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether they're a "hangover from the nineteenth century" or whether they're more worthy of ITN/R than a boat race between two universities. -Zanhe (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Usually these 'legacy' projects are figured out to justify the expense in hosting the event or to reuse the facilities afterwards, or are simply accelerated in construction to host the event. The reasons you have listed in support are all good arguments to make at ITNC, which can still be done if this is removed from ITNR. The fact that the 2015 expo article is not in shape for posting suggests little interest in the subject, along with the fact that outside of the event area this is not top news unlike, say the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Support removal. These events don't get the media attention of Olympic games or previous Worlds Fairs. Removal from ITNR doesn't prevent this from being posted in future years. Calidum T|C 06:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep I don't understand how people want to remove such items when elections in Cook Islands, or whatever final in Gaelic or Canadian football have an ITNR spot. Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any comments about the merits of this event being ITNR, instead of commenting on other events? There are systemic bias issues with the forms of football being removed, and there have been attempts to narrow the entities eligible to have their elections posted, without consensus. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep - World's Fairs remain a big deal. Just because they don't rise to the level of the Olympics anymore, doesn't mean they aren't worth covering. Zanhe is quite right in saying these are events that transform cities. Arguments about the 2015 article being in poor shape are irrelevant - the correlation between article quality and subject importance/interest is very weak across Wikipedia. It only takes one good editor to make an article featured quality, but there are few editors with that ability/desire. Thus our featured articles are a random sampling of the interests of 0.1% of our editors and 0.001% of our readers and many very important articles remain poor quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Weak Keep I agree that these events still have significant cultural impact. I still hear Shanghai's 2010 expo occasionally talked about, which cannot be said of most other events on ITNR. Admittedly though, interest in these has been steadily waning since the mid-1900s. Mamyles (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Waning interest suggests this shouldn't get an automatic pass on notability and it should at least be discussed through the usual ITNC process. News coverage is also limited; I can find it, but it isn't top level news and is mostly fluff pieces promoting the theme of the fair, not describing something significant about it, such as world leaders attending(though Pope Francis has criticized the event) or something else notable happening there. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

While there is less interest from its peak, where this would be front-page news in pretty much every country around the world, this still has a notable level of world interest. Changed to a "Weak keep" though. Mamyles (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove. Should be considered on individual merits in ITN/C nomination; not everything that's notable needs to be ITN/R. Spencer^T♦C 19:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Support Remove: My perception of the World's Fair as such is that it is a quaint event that traces its history back to the 19th century. I associate it with the introduction of new ideas and technologies and innovations and the like. As 331dot indicated - they seem to serve little purpose at the present, aside from garnering funds for what appear to be pet architectural projects that later see little use, and more frequently than not, wind up simply going to ruin and disuse. I am of the opinion that it is an event that is very much past its time. Challenger l (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I won't do so myself as someone who is involved here but there seems to be consensus to remove this in my opinion. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't really think there is consensus to remove, but if you want to ask for an admin to assess the discussion see WP:AN/RFC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Jnanpith Award

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I propose that Jnanpith Award should be listed in ITNR. Jnanpith Award is the most prestigious award in the field of literature in India. It is awarded to recognise the best literary work out of the 22 languages in the country whose population is over 1.2 billion. Right now the literature section of ITNR is dominated by English language. Jnanpith Award represents 22 languages. Also India is underrepresented in the ITN section as a whole. 117.221.122.70 (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Has this been successfully nominated at WP:ITN/C more than once? That's evidence that this has enough consensus to surpass lengthy discussion each time this is nominated. –H T D 09:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Those sound like some excellent reasons to nominate it at WP:ITN/C, which doesn't appear to have ever been done before. Once it passes at least once (which I think it would), then an ITN/R could be considered. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose national awards should not be at ITNR, especially not the widely known ones. Nergaal (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what is wrong with an English bias here. ITN is not article space but a service to the readership: different rules apply. First and foremost this is a service to the user to enable them to find content they may be interested in. It stands to reason that users of the English Wikipedia are on balance going to be more interested in English language arts than those in other languages. 3142 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Proposal: Adjust failed launches listing

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Insufficient consensus to change the status quo, I suggest this is re-visited should such an ITNR come back again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2015 (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.

Given the current discussion about the failed Proton-M launch, I will propose changing the "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" to state "Failures of nonroutine rocket launches". People seem to be considering this recent failure not notable for its circumstances, so as satellite launches are the most common type of rocket launch, we shouldn't include that as a criteria. As stated in that discussion, ITNR is for those items that have clear consensus for posting every time; if we have to debate which rocket launches are notable and which ones aren't, then it's time to adjust something. I don't propose keeping "sufficient details to update" as that is a given for any nomination. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as it is accepted that ITNR provides establishes general classes of stories that are nearly always an ITN story with the occasional exception (which is how we treat nearly all policies and guidelines on WP), then there's no need to change a thing; most launch failures are still ITN, just that one of unmanned telecom satellite launch which resulted in no injuries was a minimal impact news story and more focused on the failing Russian program than the actual event. This is not to say that not all failures of nonroutine rocket launches are not ITN: if there were causalities from a failed launch, or like with that ISS delivery probe, if it didn't burn up on re-entry and seriously threaten to crash into a populated area of Earth, that would be ITN. This specific case, meh. I would rather we don't touch ITNR and recognize that there are occasional exceptions, than try to narrow down ITNR too specifically. ITNR was never a guarantee of automatic posting, even if the article quality was in good shape, as has been discussed many times before. --MASEM (t) 12:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Masem, most rocket launches are unmanned and most launch failures don't result in any injuries or drama. So what you are calling "occasional exceptions" seems to be most cases in reality. I don't see what the point of having something as ITNR is if we are, in most cases, not going to post it. Better to just leave it to ITNC. Formerip (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Then lets change the language to "failures of manned rocket launches", and be aware that failures of unmanned launches can be nominated as ITNC as necessary (for example, if a NASA or ESA interplanetary probe launching fails). Either way, I do agree with removing "where sufficient details are available to update the article" as that's implicit for ITN in the first place. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's suggestion. If it were a launch failure that means the astronauts on the ISS are going to run out of supplies or something, that would be notable, but there is something off with the idea that it is our duty to put every unmanned rocket failure on ITN regardless of its independent notability. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any reason to adopt "failure of manned rocket launches". That is so incredibly rare that an ITN/R is not needed. The item should either be removed entirely or something along the lines of what 331dot proposes be used: either his specific language or (probably better to define 'routine'): "Failures of rocket launches, excluding routine satellite delivery". --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have no problem with your suggested wording. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

My preference would be to remove it entirely, as I don't think a non-critical supply run to the ISS or another space facility is pro forma notable. Striking this item from ITN/R certainly doesn't mean we cannot and should not assess these incidents on a case-by-case basis. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer "excluding routine delivery" over removing failures entirely. That would cover both unmanned cargo and satellite vehicles. Mamyles (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with this proposal as a compromise solution. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I will be bold and make that adjustment, for now at least. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This strikes me as being a retrograde step: I can see what the intent is but is isn't what the rule says - it is utterly meaningless and can be twisted to mean anything. What counts as a "routine delivery"? In isolation that could cover virtually any space mission, satellite launches, space probes or even manned launches. It doesn't say what it is intended to cover and in that sense fails immediately. I will revert it because clearly more discussion is required: rules are rarely completely unambiguous but must at least give some sense of what they are trying to address.

More broadly I don't believe substantive action is needed at any rate. Yes, we've had a cluster of these recently, that happens: it is par for the course on ITNR. If anything the repeated nature of it makes each failure more notable, not less so. Consider the next resupply mission to the ISS fails and we don't cover it because, well, it's not notable any more. However, a week later it is announced that the ISS is being abandoned because it is no longer able to support its crew. This isn't far fetched - we have already had murmurings from individuals at various space agencies about the problems the resupply failures are already causing. It would also be a grave failure on our part, amounting to bolting the stable door just as the horse is about to come home. 3142 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't disagree, and I attempted to make such an argument at the last discussion, but consensus didn't seem to agree with it; I proposed changing the listing as a compromise per my explanation above. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2015 (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] Proposal: Remove Premier League

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion

No consensus to remove this item from ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2015 (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'm not proposing to remove this because I don't like football or the Premier League, but because of this reason.

The NFL is the biggest league in American football, its interest far dwarves any other. The same can be said of MLB, NBA and NHL.

The Premier League is not a cut above other soccer leagues in the same way that NFL is by far bigger than other American football leagues in other countries. While the status of the American sports leagues as the biggest in their respective sports is long-established, there is frequent fluctuation in European soccer. The English league is not the current best, nor has it been dominant for greater time than other European leagues (per linked chart).

The solution would either have those four leading leagues (England, Spain, Germany and Italy) all ITN/R, which is ridiculous as they all finish around the same time and would clog the ITN box. Or remove all domestic leagues as there is none which is more established as the greatest than any other. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Premier League is the most watched league in the world of any sport. Even Google agrees. (Unless you consider F1 a "league", that is.) –H T D 17:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose just because other leagues aren't included, that shouldn't preclude the winners of the most popular league in the most popular game in the universe being included at ITNR. ITNR isn't about the "best" or most "dominant". Suggest this is swiftly closed as pointy just because La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A aren't included. Disappointing behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointy. Disappointing behaviour. For pointing out that one of four leagues which have different leaders in different fields is highlighted more than the other three? What about if the election of the American President was R but not the president of Russia and China? Wouldn't you ask for reform? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I already supported the inclusion of La Liga. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I suspect this is only "pointy" because the Premier League is British. Reso lute 01:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think all 4 could and should be ITNR with the stipulation that the four should allways be as merged blurb. Therefore, at any given time they cannot take more than ITN entry. Nergaal (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Most-watched football league and maybe sports league in the World. Many sports leagues compete for attention in USA. In England and lots of other countries soccer is completely dominant as spectator sport. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree singling out the Premier League is unjustified, but instead of eliminating it we should add other leagues - La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A. As Nergaal suggests, if they coincide a joint blurb can be used. We should remember that soccer is by a considerable distance the most popular sport in the world, so I don't think adding these leagues would give it an unreasonable number of entries. Neljack (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There's certainly too much sport in ITNR and I wouldn't want to see any more, however this is not the place to start trimming, and I say this as someone who can't stand the game. I disagree with the central assertion of the proposal that the leagues are equal. It may naturally appeal to our senses of egalitarianism but it has to be justified.

Let us consider one measure of interest in the respective leagues: TV revenue. This source[5] shows the state of affairs there and places the EPL a country mile ahead of any of the other leagues referenced. Sure, that isn't an ideal metric since national TV markets differ but international rights are a much more equal comparison. In the case of the EPL those amount to over 40% of the total, in other words, you can remove the lucrative domestic rights from the EPL and what is left is still greater than the total TV money of any of the others excepting the Italians.

You can argue about to what extent the leagues are equal until you are blue in the face but the money talks louder. TV execs know what audiences they can expect from the different national leagues in their marketplace - the fact the EPL is worth so much more to them shows that there is a lot more interest in this league than the others.

Finally there is the language argument I have used here before. Do not confuse ITN with article space where different standards apply - things like presenting a worldwide view that is wholly impartial to national interests do not necessarily apply here. Clearly we do not wish to be too insular but ITN serves to identify articles likely to be of interest to the readership. It is entirely justifiable to give some preference to Anglophone nations on the the English language Wikipedia. 3142 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removal oppose more soccer Is this not enough soccer? Adding more soccer isn't the right answer. All these euro-leagues are essentially qualifiers for UEFA championship. Leave the EPL, it's old and it's popular and it's an English speaking country, but after that, what? The Spanish league? The German one? Take a look at world cup performers: Brazil, Germany, Spain, Italy, Argentina, Netherlands, France, Uruguay ... and also large countries where soccer is popular like Mexico and South Africa. Should all these countries national championships be posted? Where do you draw the line? How much Soccer is enough? Should the box just be renamed "In the Soccer"? Honest to goodness enough already. --36.75.112.225 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The line would seem to be drawn at the MLS cup, which was rejected below. I would note this is not just an encyclopedia for English speakers, but for all knowledge and information. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not taking about afd here, I'm talking about automatically featuring them on the main page of the en wiki. Let the es wiki feature the Spanish leagues, the de wiki feature the German leagues. Let the whole of all the different languages at wikipedia rejoyce in the majesty and wonder of the uefa final. Enough soccer. Enough. --36.83.148.114 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. There is merit to the argument that the Premier League is not the unquestioned top circuit of its sport, but it is the most popular, and certainly the most popular in English speaking countries. I don't see the lack of support for other major soccer leagues for ITNR as a strong argument for removing this one. Reso lute 01:11, 20 June 2015 (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] Proposal: MLS Cup

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

"Baby it's cold outside". Bencherlite ^Talk 13:12, 18 June 2015 (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.

If NBA Finals and Stanley Cup are going to stick around in the ITN/R, the MLS Cup should be as well. It is not as prominent nationally as those tournaments, but what the heck. Of course, there are numerous soccer (association football) tournaments listed in the ITN/R. Adding the MLS Cup isn't too much, is it? --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"X is on ITNR so Y should be" is not a very persuasive argument, especially when you concede that it is not that prominent a tournament nationally. 331dot (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

All right, I'll persuade further. Soccer is one of popular sports in the U.S. although not as much as other sports. Well, I don't care much for soccer, but winning the MLS Cup is attractive to Wikipedians, especially Americans, am I right? There might not be a big name soccer player in the US, but it's hella lot exciting, especially when the Spanish announcer yells "Gooooooooooollllllll!!!" in Spanish-language U.S. network. George Ho (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how your brain works but give it a bit of a rest. You hate sports. You especially hate American sports. That's fine. MLS is not a top soccer league. MLS is not a top American league. You are not even a fan so it makes no sense tat someone who hates it would want it added. Stop picking fights with others. People like sports. America has some of the best leagues. Just accept that fact. Correctron (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I like cricket, not the insect but the sport. Too bad it is not popular in the US and doesn't have prominent leagues or teams in the US. Well, I hate to admit that playing the 50-over game lasts about eight hours, which makes Americans reluctant to play or watch cricket. And I don't feel thrilled about 20-over games. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The sport of cricket isn't even known in a lot of places, FWIW. –H T D 13:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose In no way is MLS one of the top soccer leagues in the world. It's miles behind La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A, which are what we should be adding. 04:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Neljack (talk)
Oppose per Neljack. Considering your opposition to posting the NBA Finals, I wonder if this nom is WP:POINTy. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose In terms of North American soccer, MLS is the top league. However, MLS is not yet on the same level as the Big Four (NHL, NFL, MLB, NBA). Maybe we'll get there one day. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 08:11, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose minor league. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Canuck; it just isn't yet to the level needed to pass automatic notability. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd imagine the MLS Cup is somewhere way, way, down in interest in the USA and Canada. Behind the Big 4 leagues, college football and basketball, NASCAR, college basketball and football conference championships heck even the CFL. I urge George to stop beating around the bush and nominate the NBA Finals off the ITNR. Go file a case to the proper authorities, but I'm not assuming good faith on this nomination, blocks be damned. –H T D 13:05, 18 June 2015 (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] Proposal: Less restrictive rules on coronations and inaugurations

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Note removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2015 (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.

At present, our rules state:

Note that coronations, inaugurations, etc. are generally not posted.

This seems like a bad idea to me for several reasons:

It means that blurbs have to be complicated, with two main stories vying for importance. "Queen Whoever II ascends the throne of Somewhereland following the death of King Whoever I" is just about manageable, but if the death of the old monarch is newsworthy too then things have to get very long. "King Whoever III ascends the throne of Somewhereland following the assassination of Queen Whoever II by Whateverist extremists at the Thingy Peace Conference." is dreadful, even if we rearrange it to make the assassination the main story ("Queen Whoever II of Somewhereland is assassinated by Whateverist extremists at the Thingy Peace Conference and King Whoever III ascends the throne.")
Coronations and inaugurations can be very big news in themselves, and often take place a long time after the election/ascension. US Presidents are elected in November but inaugurated in February. Brenda took the throne in February 1952 but was crowned in June 1953. Tupou VI (the case that inspired this post) took office in 2012, but will only be crowned next week.
Where we have articles about inaugurations/coronations, it's nice to get more eyes on them. Papal inauguration of Pope Francis isn't bad but could be improved, Second inauguration of Barack Obama is pretty solid and shows some of Wikipedia's best work.
We don't really follow these rules consistently anyway. We posted both the announcement of the resignation of Beatrix and the investiture of Willem-Alexander, we posted the announcement of the abdication of Albert II and the ascension of Phillipe, and it's a virtual certainty that we'll post both the resignation or death of Elizabeth II and the coronation of Charles. I believe we posted the First inauguration of Barack Obama but not the second.

Therefore, I would suggest rewriting the rule to something like:

Note that coronations, inaugurations, etc. are not automatically considered important. Such a ceremony can be posted when it is the subject of significant press coverage or takes place a long time after the election or succession that precipitated it.

Smurrayinchester 08:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to make the text more complicated; it doesn't currently say that coronations are never posted, just generally not posted. I believe that is because most of the time they are a formality and the person's election/succession was (typically) posted. Yes, there are some that are more notable than others- which is why the text says 'generally'. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the note should be removed, and each item be considered on its merits, rather than an ITNR listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather see that than making the text more complicated. If merits are going to be judged anyway, there seems little point in saying that we usually don't do something but sometimes we do. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the sentence simply removed, as long as that doesn't cause more confusion that it solves. Smurrayinchester 11:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the sentence should be removed. There should be no presumption for or against such postings - they should be considered on their merits as news. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I also support removing the sentence so that such nominations can be considered on their merits. Neljack (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Remove. I agree with the above - it is unnecessary and each can be considered individually. (Also, I would imagine that every U.S. presidential inauguration is announced on ITN, but that's neither here nor there). Neutrality^talk 19:37, 24 July 2015 (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.