Open main menu

Contents

Target articleEdit

No consensus on this proposal. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." Can we strike the word "normally" to remove the wiggle room on this? There seem to be general consensus on this point, but periodically we post the award article when the winner is not up to snuff, and this standard should be applied across the board (bearing in mind IAR can always override). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support just do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm OK with posting and article about the prize or the work if and when there isn't another option. Our first choice should be the winner as the target, but I don't see the problem of another, closely related article, is of high quality.--Jayron32 17:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Jayron32, ITN is about showcasing articles be they the prize, the winner, or the work. Stephen 00:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SLOP. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's a solution to a realized problem, as noted: "periodically we post the award article when the winner is not up to snuff." Some editors contribute with the rules in mind, others go rule-shopping to get whatever they are personally interested in posted. There is no value in posting an old chart with a one line update once a year. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The whole point of this project, as I understand it, is not to announce news events; it is to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. (See WP:ITN) Pointing our readers to minor change to a prize article does not accomplish this goal. It also does not support the goal of making our encyclopedia better. The winner of the prize, either the work or the author, should be the focus of our efforts of improvement. The recognition of that effort is the inclusion of a bold link on the Main Page. In any case, "normally" means nothing in context. It is an unnecessary ambiguity prone to abuse. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The award article feels like a shortcut to doing any work when a notable award is won. I recognize there are cases where the work or person receiving the award are in a location in the world where it will be difficult to find english sources in a few days, so we can IAR to the award article in such cases, but if it is possible write that article (as all of these awards are signs of meeting notability requirements) with a small amount of effort it should be done. --Masem (t) 20:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the current wording is correct in that the winner is normally the best target but there are exceptions - for example if the prize is won by a team/collaboration that is not notable outside the work there will not normally be a separate article, similarly where there is not enough biographical information about the winner available to write a stand-alone article (especially if it's a debut work by a very private person from a non-English-speaking part of the world). In other cases the update comes on a breakout article rather than the main bio. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the abnormal cases are "otherwise noted" therefore "normally" is redundant and potentially confusing. This is an easy fix. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • What is "otherwise noted" is where every instance of the award goes to somewhere other than the winner, e.g. "Primetime Emmy Award (Best Comedy and Best Drama) (year's award article)". This is completely different to exceptions to the usual rule for awards that normally target the winner, which cannot be "otherwise noted" as it depends on the individual circumstances of each instance of each award. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposed removal: European Parliament electionsEdit

Consensus is clearly opposed to removing. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since Coffeeandcrumbs pointed out on the relevant WP:ITNC nomination that this item is ITN/R, I'm posting this here since the past 2011 consensus to include this on ITN/R is shaky at best. Largely symbolic election, not particularly noteworthy nor deserving of an automatic pass.--WaltCip (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Cautious keep while largely symbolic, it does involve an electorate of hundreds of millions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak remove. The EP is a toothless body that exists solely to rubber-stamp decisions made by the Commission and Council, and elections to it are rarely significant (the 42% turnout is artificially inflated by those countries where voting is compulsory, and by countries which use the elections as a proxy for referenda; in other EU countries it can drop well below 20%); although there are a lot of people voting, what's happening in practice is 28 different countries choosing delegates to send to a transnational talking-shop, rather than an election in the sense in which it's usually understood. If there's a particular significance to any given election that makes it actually in the news rather than a brief note in the inside politics pages (as I write this, even in Britain, the country where the EU is a particularly sensitive issue, the elections aren't mentioned above the fold on the BBC News website), or even if we just think the article is particularly good, we can always still run it as per the usual ITN process; given that the earliest another of these things can happen is 2024 it's not like it will flood ITNC. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Geographical requirements are quite common in elections. In a way, elections to the US congress is also just 50 different states choosing delegates to send to a national talking-shop. ― Heb the best (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The reason the elections are not mentioned prominently at the moment on the BBC front page is because the results are not counted and announced until Sunday, and because the PM made a recent statement that is more newsworthy... (confirming her pending resignation). Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal, the EP is the body that the EU voters actually elect directly, as opposed to other functions. The way the seats are distributed will determine who will be the next head etc. So this is totally not symbolic. --Tone 20:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The EP have grown increasingly influential since the founding of the EU. In 2014 they managed to make Jean-Claude Juncker head of the commission through the spitzenkandidat system. If they manages to do that again, only time will tell. While in no EU country the elections are regarded as more important than general elections, the fact that these are happens simultaneously in the entire EU, makes them highly significant. ― Heb the best (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - the European Parliament is more relevant now than it used to be, and becoming more so. Carcharoth (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Per Carcharoth, Heb the best and Tone. The elections are also by several orders of magnitude the most important supranational elections in the world. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal I have a hard time believing that major reliable news outlets would not continue covering these elections in the future. --Jayron32 15:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Man Booker International PrizeEdit

Closed, no consensus to remove. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can't find the discussion where it was decided that this should be ITN/R (probably part of the arbitrary initial batch). Since it failed to get an update this year, it's worth discussing if it should even be ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you advocate for its removal or just want a review? (Just curious) 331dot (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm advocating for removal, but a keep consensus would reaffirm this items ITN/R status. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep; the Booker is one of the few literary prizes that's actually taken seriously outside the bubble (the winner generally at least gets a mention on the television news and respectable print coverage in Commonwealth countries, and the awards ceremony is televised live in the UK itself). If you're in the mood for culling the "literature" section, the International Dublin Literary Award and the Hugo Award could probably both do with reappraisal; nobody cares about the IDLA (unlike the Booker, which does in my experience prompt a "Booker shortlisted books" section in every high street bookshop), while the Hugo is important within its small niche but of no interest at all to anyone outside it (only one of this years nominees even has a Wikipedia article). ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
So the main reason this is here is that no one bothered to get the article anywhere near ready this year, and it's only the "international" prize which I'm asking about (which has been around less than 15 years). No contention with any of your points, just clarifying. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove keep the main prize, the other hasn't demonstrated why it should be ITNR by any means. Per LaserLegs, it was arbitrarily added back in July 2008 by the snappily named "Renamed user ixgysjijel" (I know). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove @Iridescent: your comment really makes it seem like you are referring to the main prize rather than the international. Can you please confirm? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – The nominations that have come from it have only failed to be posted because of article quality. Removing the award from ITNR is counter productive. We would only making it less likely that editors will try to edit the winner's article. I have not heard a good argument that this prize is insignificant. ITNR items are still evaluated upon nomination to see if they meet quality standards. So what exactly is the harm of having a significant award listed at ITNR? So what if it fails year after year? The point is to build a good encyclopedia. Even if editors fail, I would rather they tried every year because, while they are chasing the ITN carrot, Wikipedia benefits. Some day they will succeed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    Classic WP:NOHARM argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I am arguing that removing it is harmful to this project. You on the hand are using the classic straw man; latching on to the weakest point and ignoring the major point. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    Not at all. Your argument was positioned on there being no harm in this always-overlooked article remaining on ITNR. And nominations have only failed because of article quality because this is ITNR and article quality is the only thing which would prevent it being posted. Seriously... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    So what exactly is preventing it from being posted if not article quality? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Lack of interest in the event itself. It's clearly a borderline ITNR case, and as noted, no-one ever voted it in. So this will need consensus to keep it in rather than remove it in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Exactly lack of interest from ITN/Wikipedia editors, also known as systemic bias. A simple google search shows there is no lack of interest from RS. How is removing it from ITNR a solution? How does that benefit our goal of building a great Wikipedia? Why are you advocating making ITN less diverse? We make the rules; the rules don't make us. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    You're putting words in my mouth (or on my keyboard). There's absolutely no reason this can't be promoted every year at ITNC. It doesn't need an ITNR free pass. You're continuing down the NOHARM route, and it's not doing you any fasvours at all I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Then the question is simple. I don't care how it got on the ITNR list because it satisfies the criterion: Items which are listed on [ITNR] are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. No one here has offered an argument against its "importance". I see no reason to remove it except wiki-lawyering and arguments of process. Removing it is harmful to this project and contributes to continued systemic bias on ITN. I can't help but notice that what you called "the main prize" seems almost exclusively awarded to books from the UK and former UK colonies. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not interested at all in your perceived interpretation of my motivations. In fact, they're a disgrace, but say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Now you are putting words in my keyboard. I never said anything about your motivations. I spoke only of your actions: "you advocating making ITN less diverse". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It's in the news every year outside wikipedia, it seems the main reason it doesn't get included here is article quality, not because it's not newsworthy VJ (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove - If no one can be bothered to bring the article up to speed for posting, then its notability is questionable at best. Time for it to go.--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep If the main Booker is ITN/R, so should the international as the two are related. I don't see a reason to separate them for ITN purposes.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • So you're saying we should wait until the winners of both are announced in international years and post them as a combined blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Unconvinced with the OP's statement. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove La Liga and BundesligaEdit

With all the insisting last year on the importance of these events, neither La Liga, Bundesliga nor Serie A were even nominated, and if they had been, the articles are not up to scratch. They had their chance, time to remove. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Quoting from the ITNR guidelines, "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." The guidelines don't say anything about how articles about "important" topics must always have been updated or they cease to be important topics. Neither does it say "important" topics have to be nominated or they cease to be important. As with the proposal to remove the Grammys some time ago, any argument to remove these must be based on how they are no longer important, and no arguments have been given. Banedon (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
At least with the Grammys, there was actual published evidence of declining year-over-year viewership and declining relevance among key demographics.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This is about soccer folks, not about an awards ceremony in a certain country. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the consensus reached last year was that the Bundesliga and La Liga had a sufficient amount of significance to justify listing on ITN/R, and that Serie A would need to demonstrate its ability to have a postable article at ITN/C before considering its status on ITN/R. Clearly, there is still no justification to list the Serie A on ITN/R, but one year without posting, following years in which the leagues were posted, is similarly not justification to remove the leagues, when there is nothing to suggest the significance of the leagues has diminished. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removing Bundesliga, La Liga is certainly more popular, arguably more notable, and we need to think of the readers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sports OngoingEdit

The introducrion to the Sports section states that the Football World Cup is the only non-Olympic or Commonwealth sporting event to be listed as ongoing. However, it appears that the Cricket World Cup is currently lsited as ongoing. I didn't make any changes at this point, since I couldn't find the discussion establishing it as an ongoing event. However, I thought that it was a circumstance worthy of comment. Cwilson97 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cwilson97: - the Cricket World Cup was added by consensus at WP:ITN/C, rather than through ITN/R, where it is eligible for a blurb following its conclusion. I have amended the passage to reflect this. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add elections of presidency or equivalent of major political/supranational unionsEdit

I would recommend that if we are including general elections to something like the European Parliament then we should also include elections that name the equivalent of the president/head of state for that body, like in this case President of the European Commission. I know there are a few more of these in the world as listed on Supranational union, so if we need to be selective to the big ones (EU primarily) we can decide the specifics. ETA: At minimum, I am specifically suggesting adding the election of the President of the EC as an ITNR; all other unions need more discussion but should be considered which can be discussed as well. --Masem (t) 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I think this needs to be specific, e.g. I would support the President of the EU commission, but I'm not clear on the ramifications of supporting this proposal beyond that. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Limiting it just to the President of EC makes sense since we also specifically call out the general election of the EP. If we do eventually add any other supranational unions, we should make sure elections of both the lawmaking body and the executive body (if such exist in that structure) are both included as intended, but see no problem just doing the EU at this time. --Masem (t) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is a good idea as long as we leave opening for any other supranational organization like the African Union if and when it achieves similar levels of structure and power over the laws of its constituent sovereign nations, and holds general elections in a similar manner; it may be decades away. The AU appears to be headed in that direction but I believe (maybe I am mistaken) the EU is unique in that respect. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    When we write the ITN/R line item, perhaps we can leave it general like "Results of the general election of the parliament and /or president (head) of a supranational organization with at least semi-sovereign powers". This still means the EU but it leaves it open ended. Note the 2 qualifying criteria: (1) holds general elections; (2) holds at least semi-sovereign powers". I am not sure though "at least semi-sovereign" is correct or not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "In the news/Recurring items".