Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 22

< Wikipedia talk:In the news‎ | Recurring items
Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23


Proposal to add some religious events to ITNR

Proposal withdrawn without any recorded support. Per discussion I don't think is going anywhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The recent discussion over the succession to the head of the Mormon Church has served to remind me that religion is woefully under represented on ITN. I think we should consider adding a few events to ITNR to try and correct this gap in our coverage. Obviously this will be conditional upon article quality and in some cases the articles in question may need work if they were to be nominated. My knowledge of non-Christian religions is somewhat limited but I am going to try and post a few suggestions for consideration below. Others should feel to comment and or add to the lists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)



  • The death resignation or appointment of a new Dalai Lama.
  • The death resignation or appointment of a new Panchen Lama


  • I don't know enough about this topic to be able to add any proposed events at this time. However I have dropped a note on the wiki-project page and hopefully that will generate some suggestions.



General discussion

  • As with most ITNRs, I would ask for a track record. As most of these are going to be rare, then there will be no real track record, so I think we should, by default, stick to just ITN, and debate the notability on each occasion. Having said that, I'm not sure many of those suggested above would be challenged on an ITNC basis, it's just these bizarre sects which end up getting a full rinse. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Agree on this: events that happen far less than every 4 years are those we can handle by a normal ITNC candidate. --Masem (t) 21:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Yep, I oppose all suggestions here, not in bad faith but simply because I think these items would all speak for themselves at ITNC. Just as "Form is Temporary, Class is Permanent", notability is class, and all reasonable religious positions would easily demonstrate that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Add the Panchen Lama, maybe add for heads of Eastern Catholic, individual major Orthodox churches, Assyrian Church of the East, Old Catholic Church, multi-denominational bodies like the Lutheran World Federation, maybe a few major national Protestant churches, and maybe announcement of newly recognized saints. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I added the Panchen Lama per your suggestion. I would be cautious about adding the heads of the sui iuris Catholic Churches. Most, with the exception of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic, are extremely small. In the same logic I would suggest limiting the Orthodox to the Patriarchate of Constantinople by virtue of its canonical status as primus inter pares and Moscow just by virtue of the Russian Church's sheer size. We might want to consider adding the Coptic Orthodox Pope though. The various Protestant denominations are problematic because they are so fragmented. The world wide Anglican Communion generally recognizes the See of Canterbury as its primus inter pares, but once you move beyond that we run into problems. Do all or most Lutherans belong to one body with a recognized leader? As for newly canonized saints, with a few exceptions I don't think they are likely to garner enough coverage to be something we can list as ITNR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you're uncovering the inherent problem with making any of these ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we could ask the WikiProject for suggestions.
I have been posting courtesy notifications about this discussion at a number of the projects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's good faith (boom!) but I'm not sure the intricacies of ITNR will be understood by many outside ITNR, and the rush to include as many main page items about various religious activities as possible will probably undermine any kind of discussion based on notability and quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair concern, but I doubt there will be consensus to add more than a few items, if any. As of right now, actual support is looking pretty thin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
These events are not recurring in the sense that the award of a prize or certain sporting events are recurring on a "schedule". They happen occasionally and can be handled through the normal ITN process. By contrast, religious holidays are recurring. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed removal: World Economic Forum summits

WP:NAC: There is unanimous consensus to remove this from ITNR. It's good to resolve the situation before the 2018 edition concludes later this week. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 23 January 2018 (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.

Propose the removal of "World Economic Forum summits" from Exhibitions, fairs and summits > Economic and political summits. Please note that the 2018 meeting will conclude on 26 January 2018, so it would be good to achieve consensus on this proposal prior to then.

This proposal is based on a long-term and structural absence of the required "news" content. The article World Economic Forum does not contain year-to-year detail on its meetings other than title and date in a table. There are no sub-articles on the annual meetings. While a 2011 WT:ITNR discussion added this to ITNR, I don't think this has ever actually been posted - there doesn't appear to be enough prose on any specific meeting in World Economic Forum that would have qualified for a sufficient update for an ITN posting for any year. If extraordinary circumstances surrounding a specific meeting, or a dedicated editor, result in specific articles being created for future meetings these can be evaluated as normal ITNC items without prejudice. --LukeSurl t c 14:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Remove. I agree with the assessment LukeSurl gives above. Very rarely does anything of substance come out of these meetings, and if it did, it can be nominated when it does through the regular process. I don't recall the last time this was posted either. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove per LukeSurl and 331dot. Neljack (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove per LukeSurl and 331dot. Didn't we do this (or at least discuss doing this) for the G8 summits recently too? If we didn't we should. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: It was the G20 summits that were removed; see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_21.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove – Each one should be judged on its newsworthiness or impact. (This year's summit starts Jan. 23 in, guess where?) – Sca (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - seems pretty clear cut here. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be prudent to close this now as the 2018 summit is imminent. —LukeSurl t c 23:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed removal - Space Exploration

The type of events described here generally will be posted if nominated. However, tagging these as ITNR compromises the reasonable discretion ITNC has to weigh specifics of the scenario (e.g. Rockets evolve over time; is this one really "new?" Is Bahrain sponsoring and hosting a SpaceX mission "indigenous?") as some editors will dismiss such concerns as improper notability debates. ITNR should only be used when the event fits cleanly within a black & white paradigm; a king is enthroned, a film wins the Oscar. These type of events include a level of ambiguity that doesn't fit within the ITNR's stated purpose. GCG (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

ITNR is not meant to be black or white, just to avoid that the general class of events that the INTR relates to should not be questioned. Individual events can be questioned for ITN posting due to unusual circumstances, for example. --Masem (t) 06:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Addition: PDC World Darts Championship

NAC: No consensus. There are a few more support !votes than opposes, although many of them have single-sentence reasoning. The opposition raise detailed concerns, and the point about there being two rival world championships of similar standard was never properly addressed (and wasn't raised until after many of the support !votes). Overall the two sides are roughly balanced and there's no clear consensus here, so the status quo prevails. Stick to ITN/C for now; we can reassess once we see how the next couple of nominations get on. Modest Genius talk 13:56, 26 January 2018 (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.

Due to its current nomination at WP:ITN/C, it has come to my attention that the World Darts Championship is not currently listed on ITN/R. In fact, the current nomination is facing opposition as a result. I was surprised to find this, as, particularly in the United Kingdom and Ireland (large sources of readership on, darts is extremely popular, and is a very large sport in terms of following, exceeding many other sports events currently listed at ITN/R. The World Championship is the darts tournament of the year, attracting massive viewership and the attention of RS's. 1 2 3. Consequentially, I feel that it warrants a listing at ITN/R given its popularity and prestige; this is apt as ITN/R exists to facilitate the rapid posting of articles which are deemed to be of significant interest to the readership of the encyclopedia - thus, a listing is certainly warranted.
Thoughts? - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There is far too much sports on ITN already. I took the liberty of fixing the "opposition" diff in your edit, it was missing a zero for some reason zzz (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait let it pass at ITN/C first. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (especially after the current nom is posted), I don't see why not. Davey2116 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait per CosmicAdventure. Now isn't the time to add this, especially if the nomination isn't posted. Banedon (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Support the scale of the event is good enough. Banedon (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that this is larger than some other events we have. Neljack (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it's good enough for snooker, then it's good enough for darts. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. If we keep getting articles like the one that was posted for the current version of this event, along with what seems to be its popularity, this is a no-brainer. Glad to have viewed the article and learned something. As for too much sports, we are close to removing the Dakar Rally above. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two of these "shared" £400,000. Footballers get £400,000 a month. But I guess it's going to pass anyway, so I'll just have to accept the Main Page is a joke. zzz (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    What a bizarre position to adopt. The winner of Wimbledon gets £2.2m which isn't actually that much more than this, yet you'd hardly see anyone complaining about us posting the winner of that competition. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    So, that's about 5 to 10 times the amount then? zzz (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Yes? About as much as Pogba earns in a month. What's your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    What's your point? Why should this be ITNR? It's clearly not a big deal, even in the world of sports. zzz (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    I've already opined, based on how much interest it raises, that it's the top-level competition in the sport, etc etc. You just don't like it. So perhaps you could come up with something better than a comparison of the prize money. After all, it's all about the cheese. "clearly not a big deal"? Heh! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Someone used the prize money to justify posting it on ITN, it seems we agree that doesn't work. I haven't seen any other justification, apart from you just like it, for some reason. " it's the top-level competition in the sport" so, every "sport" gets automatic top billing on the Main Page, since when? zzz (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    You clearly haven't read what I wrote either here or at the ITNC. But never mind, I'm not wasting an iota more time discussing this with you. Bye! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    So you gave a well-thought-out convincing argument - I just missed it. Of course you did, my mistake. (Here it is: "It's good enough for snooker, then it's good enough for darts." Nope, I saw that.) Look, this is quite possibly the best advertising the "sport" has got, which is a clear sign of a problem (as is claiming to have presented arguments that don't exist). In my opinion, of course. zzz (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There are actually two World Championships, the PDC World Darts Championship and the rival BDO World Darts Championship due to the 1993 split. The BDO doesn't have as much prize money but is shown on the BBC so should maybe be under consideration too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is important. Commentators here not familiar with darts should read Split in darts. We need to decide if we wish to post one or both of these competing events. —LukeSurl t c 18:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree on importance of the distinction. Given the comparative caliber of competition (as a viewer, Lakeside is inferior, and the world's best darts players participate in PDC. Thus, I would neglect to include the Lakeside contest, despite it being aired on BBC. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not at the level that would merit automatic inclusion (conditional on quality). Certainly does not mean that I would not support inclusion in some years or even all years, but this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:19D8:8218:7FA9:C43B (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, including recognizing that PDC seems more significant than BDO and thus preference towards that. --Masem (t) 20:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITNR is such a cudgel against discussion, we should not be so quick to enshrine items that may be subject to legitimate opposition. I would suggest we wait for two successful ITNC noms prior to adding a new ITNR. GCG (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost. ITN has no lack of sport. More importantly, this was posted, there was consensus, but I didn't see any sign of it "In the news". In the age of digital media, finding site which published a wire story or short summary to me != "In the news". I rely on the aggregators Google and Bing to give me some idea if a story is actually trending. Also didn't see it on the front page of ESPN or Fox Sports. Does a regional bias apply here? Sure, probably, but when UEFA or the EPL wraps, I still see some mention of it on this side of the world. #twocents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per GreatCaesarsGhost and not seeing this as front page news on an annual basis. Also, don't like long-term decisions being made during very quiet and relatively low engagement period of early January. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Given that the Championship is on in December/January, it seems the most apt time to discuss it, as its importance and significance is fresh is everyone's minds and easily researched. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support one of the purposes of ITN/R is to give appropriate "weight" to different sports in the ITN rotation. One annual posting for darts seems appropriate. Practically, I'd be happy for every sport that has an international professional scene to have an ITN/R item. In terms of the split, it seems clear that the PDC Championship is the premier event. It is essentially an editorial decision to favour the PDC over the BDO but this is a necessary one. Posting both, particularly as their blurbs would likely co-exist in the template, would be too much weight for this sport. --LukeSurl t c 11:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support What better way to highlight for the wider community the recurring problems with this section than to post this on the front page. Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
    I don't know - Crufts, possibly. Worth considering. zzz (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support PDC Championship only as it seems to have the higher quality players, and a (relatively) higher profile these days.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OpposeTiddlywinks will be next. Sca (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    You think the world tiddlywinks championship final would have in excess of two million domestic televsion viewers? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If professional 'wrestling' can draw upwards of 20 million U.S. viewers, why not? Sca (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
You nailed it yourself. It's not professional, and it's not a sport. And you know that many more people live in the US than in the UK, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
TRM, my previous post was intended to be ironic. Sca (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Proposed removal: Super Bowl

No. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2018 (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.

ITN is meant to be for international news, and the Super Bowl doesn't really make news outside of the States. Make it a headline on Current events/Sports or something; it doesn't need to be in the worldwide news section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixinova (talkcontribs)

@Nixinova: You seem to have a misconception here. ITN is not and never has been "for international news" only. If it was, very little would be posted as most events do not have international scope. In fact, we specifically state on the ITNC page: "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." As I don't recall seeing you post at ITNC before, you may wish to learn about what ITN is for at WP:ITN. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Per 331dot, your premise is flawed from the get-go, and so your request to remove this from ITN/R holds no water.--WaltCip (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm amazed I need to justify inclusion of the marquee championship in the sport on the ITNR list, but the Super Bowl does indeed make news outside of the US: BBC, Irish Times, and even in Times of India. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
In Germany too. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we snow close this? There is no way that the biggest event in the US sporting calendar is going to be removed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Proposed removal: Grammys

No consensus and proposal withdrawn. The arguments boil down to two basic strands - "Is the event notable enough to be on the ITN/R list?" and "Does it matter that lack of quality updates mean that it hasn't been posted for the last 4 years?". Unfortunately there isn't a consensus about either. As the second question could be asked independently of any specific entry on this list, that might be a discussion worth having (as long as the general question does not get conflated with any examples used). I do not foresee that consensus for or against the Grammys appearing on this list will be achieved without either an answer to the question about updates or an article about the edition of the awards having a quality update.
Two other points raised in the discussion are worth mentioning here: (1) There is no consensus against the principle of a music awards ceremony on ITN/R, provided that the individual one is sufficiently notable. (2) Whether ITN/R as a whole is doing a good job would need to be a completely separate discussion to achieve any consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2018 (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.

Two years ago I proposed removing the Grammy awards from ITN/R. My reasoning then, as it is now, was that the article simply was not receiving sufficient editor attention in order to warrant its recurring posting. The counter-argument was made that if a recurring event is sufficiently notable enough to warrant posting, then the article quality should not matter as far as qualifying for ITN/R. However, I submit to you that if an event truly were notable on Wikipedia, rather than within the microcosm of the media, then the article's quality would reflect that by increased attention. As it is, we did not post the Grammys in 2016; we did not post it in 2017; and, barring a heroic effort by our editor corps, it does not look as if we will post it this year either. This is in addition to this year's Grammys hitting a viewership low this year.

Of course I understand there is a propensity to keep major media brouhahas on ITN based on the prolific and luscious history of Hollywood in the media and entertainment world, but given the consistent failure to post this on ITN, I think it would behoove us to assess events like this based on their actual significance at that time rather than that assuming its notability based on historical significance. One year of not posting can be written off as a fluke or an exception. Three years of not posting demands further scrutiny.--WaltCip (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • A point of order: is ITNR really providing any value at this point? What does it really do that ITNC cannot handle on its own? GCG (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Try to see the situation when the next Boat Race is nominated and there was no INTR for it. --Masem (t) 14:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • That's exactly the point -- ITNR keeps getting TBR posted despite a lack of consensus to post. If we look at its initial nom to ITNR or its subsequent nom for deletion, the consensus is split pretty evenly. We enshrined it to ITNR by a very low standard, but demand a super-majority to pull it back. Other items (especially those added long ago) are worse: the Sakharov was added by a consensus of TWO editors, as was the Abel. The Japan Series citation doesn't even mention ITNR. Contrast this with the College Football Playoff, which has consistently been kept off ITN despite strong support because there has been strong opposition. ITNR suffers from the tyranny of status quo: the absence of consensus keeps us from removing an existing item, but keeps up from adding a new one, even if the consensus is equal. GCG (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
        • This is the sort of thing that I'm hoping to address with the above nom. Rather than presume significance based on an item being on ITNR (which is begging the question), it would be best to assess items like this on their own merits. The lack of updates for an event in the Western hemisphere makes me question its actual notability, even if it is the biggest music award show in the world (and I question the notability of even that particular category).--WaltCip (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Do keep in mind that WP is still voluntary, so certain areas will attract more people than others. I would not try to judge on the importance of any event like the Grammys due to a lack of editing. Clearly the awards were updated, but not the prose, suggesting that it due attention to those that like to trainspot (which we need but we'd like them to go further and develop more prose). --Masem (t) 18:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would support removal strictly on the basis of the fact that now three years running no one has bothered to do more than a data-dump upgrade to the article. Literally all that would be needed is 2 paragraphs to describe the ceremony broadly (I'm sure more could be written) but it hasn't happened, showing there's no editor interest in the quality of the article. I would not dismiss the Grammys as irrelevant due to lower vierership or other external factors - it still is the largest recognized award in the music area. It just lacks the editor attention that we expect that ITNR stories carry. --Masem (t) 14:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal In years where the quality of the article was sufficient, I cannot forsee any reasonable objection to posting on significance grounds. --Jayron32 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Lack of editor interest in the article over the last couple of years does not diminish the inherent notability of the event. The point of ITN/R is to speed up the process and focus on the quality of the article. I see no need to have a debate every year over whether the Grammys are significant enough - they are, as the most high-profile music awards in the industry.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • ITNR is not just about notability of the event, but that there are editors out there to make sure that articles will be updated to be near quality for posting. An ITNR entry that has routinely shown no appropriate improvements in the target article for several years running is wasted ITNC's time, and thus ITNR should be removed. A one-off year is fine, as long as its not a pattern, which unfortunately the Grammies have shown. Grammies can still be nominated for ITNC, and if over the next couple of years they show proper updates, then we can talk about readding it. --Masem (t) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Could you show me in written policy or guidelines where it says the above, especially where you say " there are editors out there to make sure that articles will be updated to be near quality for posting." I'd like to read more about that. --Jayron32 17:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal as per Pawnkingthree. All removing from ITNR would do is add a needless notability discussion every year. --LukeSurl t c 16:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove. I think that both lack of editor interest and declining viewership of the event itself means this should not be presumed notable any longer. We can always readd it if that changes. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Not for the reason given, but because the Grammys have long been seen as a joke (Anyone remember Homer Simpson failing twice to give his away?) and out of touch with the cultural zeitgeist. The industry doesn't care, sales are not impacted (as they are for Oscar or BAFTA), and the ratings for the show are atrocious. The lack of updates to our article is symptomatic of that. Just because it's the premier event doesn't make it a premier event. GCG (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - So, for the third straight year, the Grammys have dropped off the ITN/C queue without being posted, as no one has put forth an effort towards bringing the article quality up to snuff. We'll be here again same time next year with the exact same objections, and then it'll be four years straight that no one gave a flying toss about the Grammys, and so on. Surely, if something were so notable as to merit inclusion in ITN/R, there would be a much greater propensity towards the improvement of its article, yes? Yet, the Moon drifting into the shadow of the Earth - as it will do on a routine basis - was ultimately considered more notable and its article quality more sufficient to merit posting. Personally, I think the Moon in this case is more deserving to be on ITN/R than the Grammys.--WaltCip (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - the fact that article quality has lately been inconsistent does not diminish the notability of music's top awards events. Neither, incidentally, does dwindling viewership, or the fact that some critics are unhappy with the winners this year. This will still be nominated next year, and the year after, as it is notable, and will remain so in the foreseeable future. ITN/R is about notability concerns, and I don't think that these are justified in the case of the Grammys. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
As WaltCip states, this has not been posted for three years now. That's not inconsistent; the consistency is in its not being posted. It would be one thing if it was posted one year, not the next, and posted again the following year. That's not the case here. There is also the matter that viewership of the Grammys has been on a decline, as well(despite it being loaded with many musical acts). 331dot (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The Super Bowl has viewing figures which have been trending down for consecutive seasons now. I maintain that viewing figures alone, in an era when terrestrial TV viewership is on the wane anyway, should not be the primary determining factor of notability. Moreover, ITN/R exists to earmark notable events, which the Grammys are among in my view. I don't believe that we should disregard its notability because of a recent lack of notability. If the article quality is not present, then it should not be posted - many ITN/R events are not even nominated due to the absence of a quality update. Yet the update does not dictate the notability of an event, and ergo we don't need to purge it because of this recent trend, in my opinion. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
As said before, I question whether or not a "top awards event for music", whether or not it happens to be the Grammys, meets the threshold of notability that ITN sets for posting items.--WaltCip (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
You are entitled to ask that question. I feel that it absolutely does meet that threshold, arguably to a greater extent than many other items that are posted at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The music industry remains a $10+ billion industry [1], it's significant as an art form. We should want to post its top awards (which the Grammys are among), just as we would with film, literature, and television. The reason to remove is simply due to lack of interest by the appropriate WP editors to get the Grammy awards article to spec in a reasonable amount of time. --Masem (t) 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Seeing as I still don't have a consensus to go forward with this removal, I will withdraw my request. Rest assured however that I will be back here same time next year should the issue recur. An event that's so notable should have no trouble getting posted to ITN, if it truly is that notable.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The notability wasn't an issue (plenty of sources easily, worldwide), but the lack of volunteer effort to bring the article up to decent quality shortly after the ceremony, which absolutely should be a factor in determining ITRN. If no one is regularly going to be bothered to do a mediocre amount of work to improve it, then we shouldn't be featuring it as an ITNR, until it can be shown there's editors willing to do that. --Masem (t) 14:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

[Withdrawn] Proposed Removal: Winter Olympics Closing Ceremony

Withdrawn by nominator per comment below. Guess we'll see again in 2022. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2018 (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 that it merits a blurb listing at ITN for the opening ceremony, and a listing at ongoing throughout the contest, there is no denying that the Winter Olympics is well represented at ITN/R section. However, including the closing ceremony - the point of the games where fanfare has died down - seems like overkill, especially given the diminished stature of the Winter Games compared to their Summer brethren (they are simply not as popular). We don't post the closing ceremony of either Paralympic Games, and I would argue that posting the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics is not necessary either, given the attention paid to it and its relative popularity. An opening ceremony blurb and an ongoing link should be more than sufficient, in my view, especially as the closing ceremony does not even involve sports, but is rather about denoting the fact that the sport is over. For many people, it is the lesser ceremony of the other Olympic Games. Therefore, there is no reason for this to be listed at ITN/R in my opinion. Thoughts? Stormy clouds (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, just one broad set of thoughts at this time, the "ongoing" isn't a guarantee, it needs the quality updates. The opening ceremony is not a guarantee, it needs a decent article. The closing ceremonies of most such global competitions are usually notable and well updated. On this occasion, the closing ceremony article has been ignored. Unfortunately for this nom, the 2014 and 2010 closing ceremonies were both posted, so this is clearly a glitch. Maybe consider proposing removal if we don't post the 2022 closing ceremony? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: - Whoops! Withdrawn nomination, as I missed the trend pattern of previous nominations - there is no pattern to justify removal. Apologies. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Elections and Heads of State

WP:NAC: There is unanimous opposition to this proposal, and no further comments for over a week. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 17 April 2018 (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.

Suggested add: "An election that otherwise meets the above criteria but is determined by consensus at ITN/C to be a "show election" would not automatically meet the importance criteria and should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on its own merits."

I would hold that a sham election is not inherently newsworthy per se. By requiring consensus on this point, we would only be excluding the most egregious examples. GCG (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Can we objectively state what are show/sham elections? I fear this might be really hard. Eg some might consider the recent Chinese election be one. --Masem (t) 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. It is not for us to judge the legitimacy or fairness of an election. We present the information and let readers decide for themselves. You could find people who consider the 2016 US presidential election a sham because the person with the most popular votes did not win. If a "sham" election does not get much news coverage, it could be ignored as not being sufficiently in the news. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
We would not be not judging the legitimacy of the election as original research; we would be judging the notability of the event based on reports of its legitimacy in RS. If we all agree with the BBC, Reuters, et al that the Egyptian election was shady, we should be permitted to consider its notability in light of that. To blindly post "Incumbent Abdel Fattah el-Sisi wins the Egyptian presidential election, 2018" is not objective; rather it gives undue weight to the suggestion an true election took place. GCG (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Who would you trust then? There will also be sources which state that the election is legitimate. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. Banedon (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is not our role to judge the legitimacy of elections, per 331dot. Especially given the doubtful nature of recent Western campaigns. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per above opposers. Jusdafax (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, in particular 331dot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose in "high-profile countries" (China, Russia, Egypt), the elections are important enough for ITNR even if they are "sham elections". In a lower-profile country (the Maldives, Turkmenistan, or Nicaragua), I'd be inclined to only include a "sham election" if there was a change in the head of state as a result. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment in China, ascension to the chairmanship of the CPC guarantees your success in the upcoming sham election. We shouldn't post both. Maybe it doesn't matter now that Xi is president for life. For the rest, agree with 331dot. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, even if it's a sham, it's often important that the leader has managed to execute said sham and secure power for another X years. --LukeSurl t c 09:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Discussion: pop culture/blockbusters

Considering ITNR has many yearly events listed, I wonder how come pop-culture things are completely excluded. For example there are several block-buster movies that come out every few years, which amass more business than 90% of the sports listed now, but any proposal even at ITNC are immediately shut down. Under what sort of rationale/conditions could you see successful block-buster movies like the current Avengers 3 or Star Wars 8 get on ITNC/ITNR? (Something that comes out every 2 or so years). Nergaal (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If the record for revenue from a movie is frequently broken, it isn't that meaningful a record. Looking up when Star Wars:The Force Awakens was discussed for posting(for breaking the opening weekend revenue record) it was mentioned that if it broke the all time earnings record currently held by Avatar, it might merit posting. I would tend to agree. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm very sympathetic to such nominations. However I don't think there's a useful way to set fixed criteria at ITNR for these, this would need to be dealt with case-by-case at ITNC. --LukeSurl t c 08:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Change: Timing of ITN sports postings

Propose to change second clause "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified" to "unless the outcome is determined earlier by unassailable lead."

From time to time, the gap is so great it would be silly to wait (see current EPL gap of 28 days). Also, with the addition of three Euro football leagues, this might help space out the postings. ghost 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - 'tis only logical, and was applied in the posting of the Bundesliga this year. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support literally no-one will report that Man City have won the league in five games time. It is news now, and as such should be posted now. The proposed re-wording is a good start to solving that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think it would be logical and obvious that we're talking if the m/w events ended within a day or two to post them at the same time; anything more than 7 days is silly since one event is effectively stale. But if clarity is needed, so be it. --Masem (t) 15:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It will be old news by May, and all the European football leagues finish at more or less the same time so we'd be dealing with four noms in a week if we wait until the end of the season.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, that nicely counters some of the opposition in the above section who are concerned about four leagues' results being posted in one hit... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support We should post items when they are in the news and not at some arbitrary date. If the results are a foregone conclusion, there's no need to wait. --Jayron32 16:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose removal of note about women's events. Jayron32 is right, post it when it's in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support seems sensible as this is when items are "in the news". --LukeSurl t c 17:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) -- I reconsidered --LukeSurl t c 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but some care is needed if the quality of the article changes substantially between nomination and conclusion of the tournament. For example suppose 2017-2018 EPL article is rejected now on quality grounds, but a few weeks later when the last game is played, is in good shape. Post or stale? Banedon (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm surprised this is getting unanimous support, because there are situations which go both ways. As an example, take a Formula One season where the manufacturer's champion is determined two races before the driver's champion. Do we really post it twice? Better to wait for the end of the season and post both together. Another example would be the Six Nations recently - posting when Ireland were unassailable would have meant doing so a week before we knew whether they were going to win the Grand Slam, which would be an important facet worth mentioning in the blurb. The idea that the rest of the games don't matter once the champion is decided is inimical to the entire idea of round-robin leagues; we're not posting these stories just to name the champion, but to highlight the results of the entire competition. If we posted the Premier League now, we could state who the champions were, but the article would be woefully incomplete because the relegation & European qualification places have not yet been resolved. Overall I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer here, but at least for leagues (as opposed to knockout tournaments) it makes sense to wait more often than it does to post early. Modest Genius talk 10:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
EPL should be posted now. I'm not a rugby fan; is winning a Grand Slam significantly newsworthy when it happens long after the competition is settled? Ideally the language should allow common sense to prevail. As much as there is any point to having ITN in the greater context of WP, we should endeavor to only post stories that are actually in the news. ghost 12:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a Grand Slam is significant and newsworthy. And generally speaking, the Six Nations doesn't wrap until the last round of games in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Modest Genius and TRM. We should wait until the conclusion of the tournament so that we only need to post once. "Unassailable" leads can be overturned in some cases by penalty points, disciplinary issues, exceptional performances by other teams (Team A wins unless Team B win all their matches by at least 20 points and Team A lose by more than 30, the average winning margin is 10 points but the incredible happens), etc. Banendon also makes a good point about article quality - we typically (and rightly) require a prose summary of the complete tournament but this is not possible in many cases until the season is complete - grand slams, record margins of victory, career-ending injury to the greatest player in history, first ever tie-break required to determine second place, etc, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on instruction creep grounds. Maybe there are cases where this is appropriate, and cases where it isn't, and that may vary from tournament to tournament, or even from year to year with the same event. It should be discussed when nominated or specified with the ITNR listing(as the instructions currently state). 331dot (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
My intent was actually the opposite of creep: to remove the handcuff and allow the consensus to decide what is appropriate. ghost 14:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. Teams are not officially crowned champions after attaining unassailable leads, and ITN should generally not be declaring unofficial results. As an encyclopedia, having our news be official is more important than being quick. The recent case of this year's Premier League demonstrates that the relevant articles are better after the season is over because they can describe and summarize the entire season, which is more than just which team is the champion. Though the blurb may just name the champion, the purpose of posting should be to provide users with a link to an overview of the entire season. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. We shouldn't apply a blanket template to all sports when different sports follow different customs. In soccer it's traditional to crown the champions as soon as they obtain an unassailable lead, but that's not true in other sports. For sports that crown the champion immediately, post it immediately; for sports that wait until the end of the season, wait until the end of the season. And as noted by GreatCaesarsGhost, it would be overkill to post the winners of four or five different European soccer leagues at the same time, so doing it this way would space it out a bit more. For other sports like Formula One or Six Nations, they can wait until the end of the season if that makes more sense for those leagues. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC))
  • Comment: I think this year's Premier League posting is a great example of why we should wait until leagues finish before posting. It was originally nominated when Man City's lead became unassailable but not posted, then renominated and posted when the season concluded. In that time a) the season summary went from being a couple of uninformative paragraphs that almost entirely concentrated on City, to a detailed summary of the entire season covering all the clubs; b) the European qualification places were settled; c) the relegation places were settled; d) Man City broke a bunch of team records (most wins in a season, first team to 100 points etc.) that were worth highlighting to readers; e) the individual records (top goalscorer, player of the season etc.) were decided. As a result the article improved massively and was far more useful to readers, particularly those who don't already follow the league closely. The IRN blurb led readers to detailed information about all aspects of the season, not just the identity of the winners i.e. clicking on the bold link led to high quality content and more information than what was in the blurb itself. It was much better to wait. Modest Genius talk 11:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current status quo gives flexibility. No need for more instruction. --LukeSurl t c 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to add: Other multi-national Olympic-style sporting events

There is consensus in favour of adding the opening of the Commonwealth Games and consensus against adding the others. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2018 (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.

There's four events that each occur every four years like the Olympics for multinational competition, but more region based:

I would suggest these can be ITNR, specifically a blurb to announce that they are occurring. Not an ongoing as the Olympics gets, as they don't get close to the same worldwide media coverage, but they are all significant events on their own, and effectively 1 additional ITNR a year is not going to break ITN. --Masem (t) 14:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Having evolved from the British Empire, on which the sun allegedly never set, it seems inaccurate to say the Commonwealth Games are a regional event. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't check right now but I thought the Commonwealth Games had been ITNR at one point? 331dot (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
And (ironically, in a humorous manner, not mean-spirited) you had removed them from some discussion [2], which appears based on the first discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 14 from 2014. There wasn't a proper conclusion here, but I think there might have been support to add this as ITNR-based ongoing items? --Masem (t) 19:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Well that was interesting to find out. I would have no objection to you just restoring them (as I invited people to do back then) 331dot (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
That actually provide three routes here (which, we should establish consensus so that we can track that better)
  1. do not restore. However, my impression of the current Commonwealth Games nom is that editors feel these games should be noted as long as the articles are properly improved/quality)
  2. restore for a blurb on their opening.
  3. restore for being an ongoing item.
There could be other options but it's a valid discussion point. --Masem (t) 20:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy for the Commonwealth Games to be added. I don't think the European Games (which has only had one iteration to date, which I don't think was ITN posted) merits ITN/R status. I'll withhold judgement on the other two until I've had time to do proper research.
Also, I think it's worth adding to ITN/R how these items should be added. Specifically: at the start or close? And should the bold article be the main article on the Games or the one about the ceremony?
Personally I'd go for "start" and "main article". --LukeSurl t c 21:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support if they're on a sufficiently large scale. I'll add that there's also the Southeast Asian Games, although that looks pretty small in comparison to these. Banedon (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The current Commonwealth Games involve 71 nations, including the world's second most populous. That's clearly notable. The other three named at the start have obvious regional significance, for pretty big regions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb for opening of Commonwealth, oppose others. There was an unfortunately low barrier to entry at ITNR in the past, but going forward we should require an event to prove its mettle at ITNC before we enshrine it at ITNR. The Asian Games, in particular, were proposed and rejected last time. (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Commonwealth, oppose others - The Commonwealth Games have prestige and history behind them, and exceed the other three suggestions in scale, particularly for an Anglophonic audience such as the one we have at I would opt to oppose the rest as they are less significant, at least in my view (and this is coming from me in Ireland, where we don't compete in the Commonwealth Games). Stormy clouds (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Commonwealth, oppose others per Stormy Clouds. I'd personally like to see one pan-American game pass at ITN/C before landing at ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just dug this out from archive. I think there is reasonable consensus to add the Commonwealth games. --LukeSurl t c 15:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed addition regarding change of heads of state

We already cover new heads of states by election or by succession where this is not by election, but I would also suggest (based on the current situation around the Spanish PM) that we add succession of a head of state as a result of resignation, impeachment, imprisonment, or other similar route. Maybe this is obvious enough to not be needed per CREEP, but it seems an obvious thing we post (pending article improvements) --Masem (t) 18:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  • The Spanish PM is not the head of state (King Felipe VI of Spain is) but in regards to the issue, I think the entry could be simplified to a "change" in head of state. I'm not sure it is necessary to list the methods of change. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Either way, a change of head of state or head of gov't by a non-standard route for that country like this case seems the type of thing we always post. --Masem (t) 18:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I would agree. Changes in head of government are usually posted as part of a general election(or in an unusual situation as with Spain); there have been rare instances of a PM being changed voluntarily and not due to a scandal/no confidence vote that we have not posted. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment heads of state vs government is too ambiguous, because from country to country that person can be authoritative or a pointless figurehead. I still believe that we should go off List of current heads of state and government and whatever the yellow box is. -LaserLegs (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Question so lets consider your average European democracy. We'll post when the general election for seats in the legislature is done, then post again in a few weeks when a government is formed, then post again when the ruling party loses a vote of no confidence forcing a new election and pushing a caretaker leader? Is that the proposal? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Removal: All badminton events

Proposal unanimously opposed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2018 (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.

Badminton is a relatively obscure sport that is rarely covered in general sports media. Kaldari (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose if i'd be snarky I'd say it is at-least more popular than darts/and or the boat race. Maybe if by "general sports media" you mean U.S. media it is not popular, however in Asia it is very popular and it is popular in Denmark and England too. "Badminton second to soccer in participation worldwide", second most played sport in India behind cricket etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Galobtter: Thanks for the information. I didn't realize badminton was so big these days. Would you support removing the boat race if I proposed that? Kaldari (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Removing The Boat Race has been proposed and failed several times, please review those discussions before reopening that can of worms. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Yeah, dunno how I'll !vote on that but I definitely don't see it as worth the trouble anyhow Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the merits, as Galobtter states. One person's obscure event is another's important event. We strive to reduce systemic bias and including badminton does that. That said, I don't recall the last time we posted a badminton event. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am concerned that this proposed removal is charged with systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Where I live, baseball is a relatively obscure sport that is rarely covered in general sports media. I would never propose removing all baseball events. (PS: I love baseball, but what I just wrote about its obscurity here is true.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Added) Economic summits - proposed clarification of posting time

Clear consensus for something that was already obvious to many. Feel free to tweak the wording. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2018 (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.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summits and G7 summits are listed at WP:ITN/R (the G7 rightly so imo, I have no opinion at present about the other), but the listing does not state whether it is the opening or closing that is the event we should be posting. The opening of the 2018 summit was closed with consensus firmly in favour of waiting until the close. The primary argument for this being that we don't know what (if anything) of relevance has happened until that point. I propose that this consensus be carried over to the ITN/R listing, noting there that it is the conclusion which is the recurring event. This would not stop the opening being nominated in the normal manner should it be unusually significant for some reason. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging participants in the G7 nomination discussion: @PineForst282929, LukeSurl, WaltCip, Sca, LaserLegs, The Rambling Man, Ad Orientem, Masem, Muboshgu, Power~enwiki, Lepricavark, Strikerforce, and 331dot: Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Barring exceptional circumstance where we know going into the summit they are going to be deciding on a critical issue or if a major issue is resolved while the summit is ongoing. Barring that, it is what the summit concludes with, if anything, that should be covered by the blurb. --Masem (t) 15:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Lepricavark (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I thought it was obvious, no harm in codifying. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Seems reasonable. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - posting at the conclusion of the conference is apt in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought this was obvious, but given that nomination at the start it's worth codifying. Modest Genius talk 14:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom rationale. Well said. StrikerforceTalk 13:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support seems reasonable. If an exceptional circumstance occurs one year where the converse is more appropriate, this can be dealt with as an IAR item. --LukeSurl t c 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

(closed) World cup host selection and ongoing

Thanks to everyone who commented, I didn't expect such a diverse range of opinions so I started separate noms for each. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The popularity of the FIFA world cup is not in dispute, and recent nominations at ITN/C confirm the following recurring events are notable, and should be listed at ITN/R:

  • Host selection of the FIFA World cup (mens and womens because gender bias is the easiest to fix)
  • Adding the FIFA world cup to ongoing

This would align the FIFA world cup with the Olympics. Original pointy nomination re-worded --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose pending conclusive evidence that the women's World Cup is actually notable enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The women's world cup is already ITN/R, this is just to add the host city selection (once every 4 years or more, I think we can manage). I didn't propose adding the women's world cup to ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Well, I strongly contend that it should not be ITN/R and we would do well not to compound the error by making the host selection ITN/R. Lepricavark (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. a) Not all host selections will necessarily be like this one. It may occur that hosts will be elected unopposed, in which case it won't be as significant news (merely confirmation of what is already known. b) The hosting of the Men's World Cup is only partly a football story, it's also a significant economic/infrastructure/geopolitics story due to its size, this is not the case for the Women's world cup. c) Announcement of the hosting rights to the Women's World Cup has never been tested at ITN/C and would probably not pass. Overall the status quo is fine. --LukeSurl t c 13:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support FIFA WC (i.e. not women's) is the biggest sports event behind Summer Olympic by far. It is even ahead of the Winder Olympics in relevance, and sometimes the hosts are picked every 8 years. Having an ITNR every 4 years is not a "high price". Only reason current host pick was under the radar is because the expansion to 48 teams made it prohibitive for bids. Future one will change now that people see that triple bids are ok. Oppose women's, since nobody outside USA cares about it. Nergaal (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Mixed:
    • Support adding men's world cup to ongoing per ITN/R assuming article quality is up to par at the time.
    • Oppose adding women's world cup to ongoing without evidence that it is as at least as big a news event as the men's world cup. The men's world cup is the minimum level of significance required for any single-sport competition to be added to ongoing.
    • Oppose adding men's world cup host selection to ITN/R per Luke Surl's points a and b.
    • Strong oppose adding the women's world cup host selection to ITN/R until it has been posted via ITN/C at least twice. It wasn't even nominated in March 2015. In March 2011 Zimbabwe withdrew their bid to host (which didn't have a chance anyway) leaving Canada as the only bidder. This was not nominated either (and probably wouldn't have been posted even if it had). Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support both Men's events and oppose the women's events. ITNR should only enshrine that which has been established at ITNC (both men's events have been posted last two times), in spite of the precedence of items being added by a consensus of two when no one is looking. ghost 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose while this shows up in the news, it's usually only temporary. This indicates a lack of lasting impact until the event itself. Post the event, not the host selection. Banedon (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was against posting the selection. It has no impact outside of the actual games when they happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Addition to Ongoing: FIFA world cup mens ongoing

The FIFA world cup is already ITN/R for Mens and Womens, this is a proposal to note that the Mens tournament is added to "ongoing". This would align with the Olympics. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Last two world cups were added to ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support considering that the USA will be a perpetual participant from now on, it will receive wide coverage as long as this site will have any relevance. 2012 Olympics got 3.6 billion viewers, while the World Cup in 2014 got 3.2 bn. Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a perfect example of why ITNR is not needed. If there is true consensus on importance, the item will get posted without delay. Meanwhile, events with 35% support are locked in forever because they were added when no one was looking. ghost 13:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • If you wanna fire up that RFC, be my guest. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
      • GreatCaesarsGhost Feel free to propose the removal of any ITNR events you feel should not be on the list. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
        • You're missing the point: an item needs consensus to be added or removed. This means there is a huge doughnut-hole where any item with ~35-65% support cannot be added to ITNR if not there, nor can it be removed if it is. Items for which the importance is truly undisputed don't need ITNR's endorsement. We can therefore conclude that ITNR's actual value is to prop up those events of tenuous importance that may not survive a debate an ITNC. --- In the end it rarely matters; the BS at ITNR is frequently not nominated or lacks quality updates. But far too often we see legitimate objections to significance shot down with comments like yours - "Take it to ITNR!" Okay, check out "Timing of ITN sports postings" which was 9-5 in favor, but not adopted. Check out Space Exploration, which attracted one comment. --- But I've hijacked this long enough. As long as ITNR exists, this is a no brainer. Support ghost 14:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support seems pretty obvious. Banedon (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "In the news/Recurring items/Archive 22".