Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14
Threads older than 14 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.

Remove Super Rugby[edit]

I'm proposing this for removal primarily on two grounds. Firstly we probably have too much rugby (of either code) in any event - ITNR listings outnumber those even for soccer despite the fact the latter has a massively greater following worldwide. Secondly I refer to the article recently nominated: 2014 Super Rugby Final.

If this is really an item that has large amount of interest to the point we should be directing users to the correct page then why did not one of all those interested users add so much as a single word of prose to the article about the event it is supposedly documenting?

It's easy to argue in favour of the supposed significance of a given topic here based one opinions of the particular subject but actions speak louder than words - if the article is still in that shape getting on for two weeks after the event in question it is clear there is very limited interest in the topic among the Wikipedia audience. 3142 (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Several points:
  • Firstly, it's not true that rugby has more events than soccer. Nine events are listed for soccer, while rugby union has five. Rugby league has three, but that is a different sport. As it happens, I think soccer has too few events and rugby union is about right. While rugby does not enjoy soccer's level of popularity, it is a major international sport.
  • Secondly, I don't think we should base the decision just on one year where the article wasn't updated. In the previous two years, it has been updated and posted.[1][2]
  • Thirdly, Super Rugby is probably the strongest club rugby competition in the world - it is hard to dispute that Southern Hemisphere rugby has been stronger than Northern Hemisphere rugby in the professional era (and before it, for that matter). It would therefore make little sense to remove it and leave the Heineken Cup on the list. Neljack (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove As 3141 said it's a difficult argument to sustain - if it is of such wide interest WHY wasn't it updated? If thousands of Wikipedians are waiting on baited breath for the result and ONE of them never got around to updating the article shouldn't matter - the next one will do that. The fact that no one did suggests that there aren't thousands interested after all but a handful of fans that assume it deserves ITNR status.
To address Neljack's other points, yes, they are both rugby. Are 8 ball and 9 ball different sports because of slightly different rules when both are still pool? Or 20-20, one day and test cricket? Of course not.
As for "the strongest club rugby competition in the world" that is fundamentally POV and based on intrinsically false premises - consider for example the English Premier League vs the England (soccer) side - the former is world class football, the second is an also-ran. Performance of national sides has little or nothing to do with the strength of the domestic club competition. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If it is the sharing of a name that makes the two sports count as one: should we lump all the various codes of football together? Or if it is similarity in their broad characteristics should we include the other major handling code (American Football) with the rugbys? Union and League are separate sports with entirely separate governing bodies, rules and fanbases. The situation in cricket where the variations all have a common rule set (the Laws of Cricket) from which there are a small number of specific variations, one governing body and largely the same fanbase is entirely different. (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
138 is right. Since union and league have separate governing bodies, they're separate sports.
As for interest, page view stats for last year have been downright dismal. Rugby page view stats are always dismal, but Northern Hemisphere leagues do better. –HTD 12:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Saying rugby union and rugby league are the same sport is like saying that field hockey and ice hockey are the same sport. They may share a name, but they are quite different. Try asking fans of either union or league whether they are the same sport! Their rules are not slightly different, they are radically different. Many of the key feature of union - rucks, mauls, lineouts and contested scrums - simply do not exist in league.
As for the strength of the competition, we inevitably have to evaluate such matters when deciding what competitions belong on ITN/R. That is not impermissible POV. In referring to the strength of Southern Hemisphere rugby, I was not limiting that to international rugby. I think most rugby fans would acknowledge that Super Rugby is at least as strong as the Heineken Cup. The comparison to the EPL is inapt, since the EPL has lots of players from other countries, whereas Super Rugby does not - so the strength of the national teams is much more reflective of the strength of the club competition. Neljack (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I can assure you I understand an appreciate the difference between the two codes. My point stands. I feel it is reasonable to to lump them together as 3142 did and say "even lumped together they are not significant enough to justify the coverage". If you want to make each less significant that fine by me.
One thing I would guard against is the issue being clouded by a thousand irrelevances - if you don't think the Heineken cup is worthy of a listing, fine, nominate it and we'll discuss it: that is not this nomination and other stuff exists is not an argument for retention. Once all the blind alley irrelevances are removed there is one point made by this proposal: there is insufficient interest to justify a continued listing as evidenced by the fact no-one was sufficiently motivated to create a proper update and page view stats for the article are in the toilet. Your arguments have been long on opinion. long on irrelevances, but have done nothing to counter that central argument. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, it was updated and posted the previous two years. We should not just look at one year in isolation. Neljack (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's my point. If this subject was genuinely of widespread interest then a sufficient update would have been automatic. If you only have one or two editors that individually may or may not update a given article it isn't ITNR material. If you have hundreds of editors interested one of them will expand the article appropriately. 3142 (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Neljack, who makes all the points I would. -- Shudde talk 04:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I've no enthusiasm for this one one way or the other, but reading the evidence above that is the very argument being made for removal which is one that I instantly understand. ITN is a service to the reader above all else and has limited space. If an entry is occupied by this which receives negligible interest it by necessity knocks out something else potentially of much greater interest. How does that serve the reader?
On an unrelated point it seems this should have been automatically archived by now so Misrabot is either not working or is misconfigured. Perhaps someone more familiar with it can take a look at that. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign state elections[edit]

OK. The time has come again to have the discussion on whether or not to modify the criteria by which we post elections. There's some justifiable criticism that the interest level in many elections is likely to be very low, especially for countries with low population and very little news coverage. My feeling is that there is not a huge amount of support for posting every single election in every single sovereign country; however no one feels comfortable drawing a line somewhere: No one wants to say "these countries aren't important enough", except, of course, they aren't. I don't have any proposals per se, but we need to have this discussion, so I'm just trying to get the ball rolling. Let's just make this a binary option for now, with the option for a second poll later to hammer out the details. Let's make this poll strictly binary:

Option 1
  • Maintain the currents status quo, with every sovereign election qualifying for ITNR, (pending, of course, a quality article to link to).
Option 2
  • Establish some sort of list, criteria, or standard to limit the elections we agree should be on ITNR uncontroversially (specifics to be hammered out later)

If we decide Option 1 is the best option, we can put this to rest, and agree that (pending article quality) elections are universally agreed to be ITNR worthy. If we decide Option 2 is the best option, we can negotiate exactly how we want to limit which elections we consider ITNR, and which elections we would consider on a case-by-case basis.


  • Option 2 --Jayron32 12:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 by default. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 until any scheme to limit the candidates is adequately proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for two reasons. First, despite numerous and lengthy discussions on this issue in the past, nobody has ever managed to come up with a satisfactory method of distinguishing countries that should be included from those that shouldn't. All the criteria are arbitrary. Second, I think that all national elections are sufficiently important to be included. I cannot improve on the words of David Levy in a previous discussion:[3]

While some countries obviously have greater international impact than others do, a general election or election of a head of government plays a major role in shaping a country's political landscape (and by extension, its role in the global community). If an article about a relatively small country's general election or election of a head of government is sufficiently written/updated (which often is not the case), we should be delighted to include it in ITN (thereby illustrating our intent to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia, not one that merely covers events occurring in large countries). Given the section's tendency to stagnate, I don't understand why we're discussing ways to reduce the number of updates.

I don't see the problem with the status quo. Neljack (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I have no problem with a single posting every few years (in most cases) for every sovereign nation on the planet. I don't see why we should give extra weight to specific nations and have to discuss the notability of others. How do you even come up with a remotely fair system to do that? We're an encyclopedia ultimately and articles on many of the "minor" countries are very interesting and have well written content. CaptRik (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with the caveat that the item actually has to be "in the news" as evidenced by multiple, reliable, international sources, as well as suitable update and article quality meeting our standards. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


I have a feeling that Option 2 wins, but people can't agree on what would be the criteria, so we'd be back to Option 1. :P –HTD 12:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with HTD; without agreement on what the alternative would be, nothing will change. That would need to be decided first- which given past experiences seems unlikely. Most of the ideas and past discussions can be found here. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I do want Option 2 to win, though. :P –HTD 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Check: List of countries by population. How about having a threshold for the population. I am sure there will be some saying that having 1 million pop is a random number, but according to the list above, there is a notable gap/jump from 1,212,107 to 886,000. In my opinion, it would be ideal to have ITNR for all the countries above the 159 position, and have those below simply get an ITNC discussion, without an auto-ITNR pass. I would like to hear people arguing why any of the countries below the 1M pop threshold should get and ITNR, and perhaps which states above the threshold might be less deserving than the ones below. Nergaal (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My take on how this is best handled is to recognize that when items are put on ITNR, that means the basis of the item in general is not an issue as an ITN element (eg the results of national elections in this case), but that specific instances may be debatable, and that, along with article quality, should be the subject of discussion in the ITNC nomination. Clearly this will apply more to some ITNRs than others (for example, it is very very doubtful that we'll declare a Nobel prize naming as not an ITN item), but it make writing ITNRs easier and without excessive favoritism/bias. Basically, ITNR should not be seen as "automatic posting one article quality is good" but that the debate should short-circuit past the fundamentals and focus on the one specific instance. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The absolute-no question-just update it and I'll post it-threshold is 100 million. Other than that, you could make "exceptions". –HTD 17:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why the population is important. For instance, I've seen it noted lately that Belgium is an important country. They barely register 10% of the 100 million. The "exceptions" here is just exactly as I noted, but in reverse. Vote these unwanted nations "out" of ITN/R, not vote to keep them in. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd want to know what would be the criteria for "importance". ITN has never defined that ever. That's why people are using things such as "population" as a an alternative since it's easier to define. –HTD 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Population isn't a guide to anything substantive. And "easier to define" is a cop-out. We should just stick with what we have unless anything suggests otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If we were to give weight to anything, we should probably give it to English speaking countries, as we are English Wikipedia here. Not convinced population alone should be a suitable criteria. CaptRik (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • My goal is to see if the current system is working well. People voting "We don't like the current system, but keep it anyways" doesnt' seem very logical. If people don't like how it works, THEN we can negotiate a change. But to say "I want to change it, but I'm voting to not change it" makes little to no sense. --Jayron32 18:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, well just to be clear, from my perspective, I'm saying, "I don't mind the current system, so tell me how you'd actually change it". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm also saying that; I would need to see a proposal. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

TRM, of curiosity, which of the entires listed under 1M would you mind not be ITNR, or think are definitely worthwhile an ITNR spot? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the point of ITNR is to minimize discussions on those entries that are anyways going to be supported. In the past several months there have been PLENTY of entries from less impactful countries which received MAJOR opposition, which were still posted because "they are ITNR". How about changing the current rule and ELIMINATE ALL ELECTIONS, and just have a normal IRNC discussion for each entry? Nergaal (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, I haven't had the chance to spend time looking at those below a population of one million. But your counterproposal should form option 3, i.e. remove this from ITNR entirely and vote "in" those we really are interested in. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I propose Option 3 which is a return to first principles: ITNR is a list of items that have consensus: not ones that had it in the past. We don't need to show consensus for removal, only the lack of one. This has been revisited often enough that there's clearly no consensus for the current formulation so it should be removed in its entirety. If someone then wants to propose a narrower classification that is able to attain consensus that narrower category can be re-added. 3142 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It is clear that no consensus exists on the status quo. The current framework seems to lend a different standard of evaluation for elections as compared against pretty much everything else on ITN, this is going to be a problem that is going to be revisited again and again as long as elections of very small countries continue to gain exposure on the Main Page, one of the most visited pages on the internet. We cannot simply impose or moralize on a principle that we post elections of very single country, without providing some very widely agreeable reasons to do so. Moreover, no one has yet established sufficient due process in the determination of the initial "consensus" for the all-sovereign-states criteria. Countless discussions on this issue has led me to believe that this consensus simply did not, and clearly does not exist, and thus the existing ITN guidelines on this to be scrapped by default even prior to determining a "better solution". Colipon+(Talk) 02:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Heh. The Gaelic games events (there's still one of them!) took years of "no consensus to remove" just to have one of two removed. I'd rather see a blurb about of the election in San Marino than a championship of a sport 99% of the world hasn't even realized that exists. –HTD 12:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Would people consider something like a Recent Elections line below the normal news items, similar to RD? Visibly it might need some effort to make it fit, but it would give specific space dedicated solely to any kind of election. CaptRik (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not saying I'm for or against it, but that has been discussed before. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Option 3[edit]

  • Remove immediately the line "All states on the List of sovereign states". Over time, add back ONLY specific entries that have/will receive explicit consensus at ITNC.

What do people think about this? Once an election for a state is accepted overwhelmingly at ITNC (excluding article quality-based opposes) then that single country can be re-listed at ITNR for future elections. Nergaal (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea, but it raises some systemic bias issues. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Systemic bias is not a one way trip, it cuts both ways. The current treatment includes candidates that probably don't deserve it and excludes others that may. Consider the United States and Tuvalu - how are they remotely equivalent? They are clearly not and pretending that they are is itself systemic bias. I would go as far to assert that for the US you can go a level down in that even Senate or gubernatorial elections have far greater worldwide impact than even the general election of Tuvalu. I'm not meaning to denigrate Tuvalu or its people but equally we can't pretend that it has the same kind of worldwide impact as the US.
Now spin the situation around and consider Tuvalu vs Bermuda. Both are self-governing island nations but the latter has six times the population and 150 times the economic output. It doesn't get included as we deem it to be not sovereign. Sure, defence and foreign relations are farmed out to the British government but essentially the determination of sovereignty for our purposes boils down to the fact it isn't a UN member. Is that really justification to exclude it ahead of smaller countries? What have you got against the people of Bermuda?
My point is that the current treatment is an abrupt cliff edge, not always in the right place, but by pushing ITNR so far into inclusionism we lose the ability to weigh the merits or borderline cases. If instead we had an ITNR list of say 20 countries we can then evaluate countries 20-30 on a case by case basis at ITN/C. As it is we are carpet bombing ITN with largely insignificant elections and there is simply no enthusiasm for anything else no matter how curious or problematic that case may be. That is systemic bias, not drawing the realistic conclusion that all countries are not equal. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we are also missing the forest for the trees here in that elections, as well as any ITNR listing, will not(or should not, at least) be posted if 1) the event is not in the news and 2) if the article is not given a quality update. If necessary we could make a specific note to that effect with the ITNR entry. As stated above, as long as those two conditions are met, I see no problem with giving every sovereign nation an entry. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should leave this line, but remember that WP:ITN/R is a guideline, not a policy. As such there can be common sense exceptions. If something is listed and it appears in multiple, international news sources, it qualifies (subject to article quality and update). On the other hand, if the item doesn't receive significant international news coverage, that's good grounds to make one of those common sense exceptions. Jehochman Talk 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I liked what TRM said; there should be a list of "banned" (or "allowed") countries. Arbitrary exclusion is moving the goal posts. It's like saying "Let's not add the NBA Finals because the Lakers didn't make it and it isn't news." Either there are explicitly listed exceptions (which hasn't been tried yet) or everything goes in. In the absence of a list, everything goes in. –HTD 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jehochman: have you been around when the Cook Islands got posted? The reason was "the article is of good quality and is on ITNR". There was an OWERWHELMING oppose vote to posting it, but simply because of those 2 reasons all the oppose votes were disregarded. Of course, nobody in the real news cared to have the news anywhere near their front page, but wikipedia was against it simply because the entry was "kinda" listed at ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If ITNR is truly just a "guideline" to be exercised with common sense, then it certainly should not be used as a the primary or only justification for posting an item. The problem is that as it stands, elections such as those of Cook Islands could only ever hope to get posted on the Main Page because of ITNR. Moreover the "oppose" votes all get rejected on the basis of ITNR.

Another dimension of the problem is that whether we like it or not, not all elections are "in the news". For instance when the Democratic Party of Japan formed government for the first time in 2009, this was big news because it ended decades-long dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party. But I would hesitate to think that every single post-war Japanese election is of enough significance to post onto ITN, because it certainly does not make front page news every time. Similar problems exist for presidential elections in countries where the president is a largely ceremonial position such as India and Germany. Colipon+(Talk) 15:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for the reasons I've given above. Neljack (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As several editors have commented there is clearly no support for the current arrangements. It is not appropriate to allow the ongoing practice of fans of particular subjects to gets decisions "their" way over and above the general sentiment of the user base by claiming the existence of a consensus that cannot be shown to exist. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted the October 17 edits of Jehochman[edit]

"Lack of substantial news coverage" was never a reason for exclusion in ITNR. proposal and updates were the only requirements. Its listing means there's already "substantial news coverage" about the potential blurb. Also, I'm amused on the use of the word "clarify" when it's obviously an addition, not a clarification.

If that clause would be added there should be consensus here for first. –HTD 13:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that this is In The News, I think inadequate news coverage is certainly relevant. If something isn't in the news, it shouldn't be posted here. I don't think that's a big change or a change at all. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The thing is there are only two requirements for an ITNR item to be added as a blurb: to be suggested at ITN/C, and be updated. This addition/clarification introduces a third requirement: prove that it's in the news. Someone would make an argument that any ITNR blurb isn't in the news. This is not just limited to elections, as what was so obviously the intent of the addition masquerading as a "clarification". See, for example, the Lakers and NBA example above.
In other words, the reason why ITNR exists is to avoid discussing about the newsworthiness of a blurb. If defeats the purpose if that would be added/clarified. –HTD 14:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
ITNR establishes notability, not newsworthiness. If there was an occasion that the NBA Finals were not in the news(unlikely regardless of the winner), that would be a valid reason to not support it. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
ITN doesn't establish newsworthiness unless it's ongoing. One could argue that the no one cares about the NBA Finals in his continent, and that would be a very valid argument if this is invoked. –HTD 15:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Geographic reasons for opposing a nomination are specifically said to be inappropriate on the ITNC page. If the NBA Finals were not news in North America (unlikely), they shouldn't be posted. If that was done repeatedly, yes, a discussion could take place as to whether it should remain ITNR. This case, however, deals with a much broader category which might have the occasional exception. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
"Geographic reasons for opposing a nomination are specifically said to be inappropriate on the ITNC page." Holy mackerel, that's the reason why we're having this discussion. The Sao Tome election wasn't in the news in the USA or UK. ITNR doesn't allow for exceptions unless it's explicitly says there is one, which has never happened but I'm willing to along with it. –HTD 16:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Where is it stated there are no exceptions allowed? That would seem to go against WP:IAR. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Where is it stated that there should be exceptions? ITNR used to have one for boxing fights, but it reduced it to normal ITNC nims I petitioned it to be removed. –HTD 16:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The spirit of WP:IAR would seem to permit exceptions. You claimed "ITNR doesn't allow for exceptions"; please state where that is said. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The spirit of IAR is invoked in cases such as this. ITN doesn't have provisions on exceptions. Perhaps you could suggest an exception right now just like what TRM said so we'd have something to stand on. If ITNR lists "All sovereign state elections, except Sao Tome", I'd go through that. If we're just by saying "IDONTLIKEIT, IAR", it won't work. –HTD 16:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't invoking IAR for this specific case, but in response to your unsubstantiated claim that "ITNR doesn't allow for exceptions". 331dot (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you point out to me where are the provisions for exceptions in WP:ITNR? –HTD 16:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I already answered that- but I will amend it to state that The spirit of WP:IAR would seem to permit justified exceptions. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Justified based on what? Where does the listing of the Sao Tome election violate whatever's found at WP:ITN? –HTD 16:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't need to repeat what was said on the nomination. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Like above, ITNR should be seen that the basic inclusion of a certain type of story has been agreed that we do not need to rehash the fundamentals, but one can consider if the specific instance of a story might be below the normal inclusion bar due to article quality , lack of nominal news coverage, or other reasons. It should be seen as a means of short-circuiting excessive discussion of the broad merits of the ITNC to focus on the instance. Discussing if a single ITNC instance based on an ITNR element doesn't invalidate the ITNR in the future (if the ITNR element overall is challenged, that's discussed here) --MASEM (t) 14:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather have the bad ITNR items removed than let any user question the newsworthiness of a blurb, something what ITNR should had prevented. –HTD 14:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
We're talking the case where 9 times out of ten the ITNR is fine, but that tenth time there is just something that doesn't get the normal coverage or the like to meet ITNC. That's not a reason to remove ITNR, that's just a reason to oppose that specific ITNC instance. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
What sets ITNR apart from regular ITNC noms is that we won't get to have this discussion any more, unless it's the Super Bowl, Gaelic games or elections from small countries. If this is added or clarified, it removes the distinction and opens up all ITNR blurbs to questioning... which means it's time to get rid of ITNR altogether. –HTD 15:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If it is the case that an ITNC based on an ITNR is questioned due to issues with coverage, the argument at ITNC should be on that specific items. For example, in the above case with an election in a small soverign nation, the issues is not with posting the election of any soverign nation so no one is directly questioning the basic ITNR item. It's whether that election gained significant coverage this time around to be an ITN item. ITNR is not challenged. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
But 99% (OK, I'm guessing, I haven't counted) of ITNR items don't work that way. Most ITNR items in theory should apply to each and every instance of that event. For example, one could argue (and they did) that nobody cared about the 2007 AFC Asian Cup final between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but suddenly the 2011 final between AUSTRALIA and Japan had massive interest. The 2007 and 2011 instances should both consistently apply with each other. –HTD 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
No they shouldn't. ITNR should be setting the basics that the results of the AFC Asian Cup are generally of significant interest to a large portion of the global population that they will get the coverage as to appear in ITN. If one specific instance doesn't get it because few sources reported about it, that's not our fault that the media opted to ignore it, nor does it invalidate the ITNR. It's an exception, not a rule. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it should. What applies in 2011 applies to 2007. ITNR was designed absolutely to prevent this type of arguments. –HTD 16:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
No, ITNR was designed to say "is this a recurring topic that should be included on ITN assuming that it is well covered and the article is in shape". There is no change between your 2007 and 2011 example as we're still saying the Asian Cup is clearly a topic that can be considered, but we should consider the coverage of each instance to make sure it is okay.--MASEM (t) 16:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
ITNR already assumes "that it is well covered". If this is added/clarified, that goes away. –HTD 16:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It assumes that the bulk of these instances are well covered, but allows for the occasional exception. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Where does it say that? –HTD 16:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Please can someone explain to me how Sao Tome elections are within the spirit of what ITNR is supposed to cover? Nergaal (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
"To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." –HTD 16:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Since ITNR items still must be posted to ITNC for discussion, that means the only aspect cleared is the "noteworthiness", and all other factors are up for discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
ITNR items are cleared for "importance". All that we need, as stated at ITNR, is a proposal and update. That's it. No questioning on any other matters whatever they would be, unless that exception is explicitly in the rules. –HTD 16:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
"unless that exception is explicitly in the rules"-- then it wouldn't be an exception then, would it? And no, ITNR doesn't talk importance, it talks "noteworthiness". --MASEM (t) 16:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, exceptions are an addendum to the rules, right? It's not just as if "you could make arbitrary exceptions" but "here are the exceptions where the rules aren't followed". Also, I've tried looking for "noteworthiness" or even "notability" in WP:ITNR but found nothing. I did find "importance", though. –HTD 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it is "importance" but that is synonymous with "noteworthiness". It still needs to be actually "noted", and if no sources cover the singular instance, as discussed at ITNC, then we shouldn't cover it either. And no, it doesn't make any sense to document the rare exception (and we are talking rare exceptions here, maybe a dozen times a year it seems), just be aware what extent ITNR actually sets as the base. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
These are two different words and they don't have exactly identical meanings. ITNR listings are meant to bypass discussions of "is this important (and/or used to be interesting)". If we're doing that, then ITNR has to be marked as historical. If there are a dozen exceptions, why not have it appended? I'm sure people have something to stand on when they argue for their exclusion, right? –HTD 17:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:IAR and understand that exceptions do not need to be codified if they do not happen repeatedly or recurringly. If we are posting ~500 ITN stories evaluating ~1500 ITNC over a year, and less than 1% of them have some issues, we aren't going to codify those, since WP works descriptively, not prescriptively. And regardless of whether the word is "importance" or "noteworthiness", that does not address the coverage issues - an important topic that gets no coverage fails the point of ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You know that discussions on small countries' elections crop up every time someone made a decent article and nominates it to ITN. If someone made a decent article out of it, there's some coverage. –HTD 17:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's notability (more specifically our version of notability), but not importance/noteworthiness. If the only coverage for a small country's election for a certain year happens to only be a handful of sources very local/regional to that country and lacking wider coverage that it has had in previous years, that's a reason to not have it at ITN but certainly not against having an article. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see this problem with the Sao Tome elex, TBH. Reuters? Sources from Vatican City and Portugal? That has to be better than the proportion of US and non-US sources in Super Bowl XLVIII. –HTD 17:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not necessarily arguing for the speciifics the Sao Tome case, only that the point to allow for people to go "Well, hmm, if the only sources are from Reuters and those other places, its not really covered, is it?" and let that be a point of discussion. The fact that it is a ITNR item should help weigh towards posting but if the consensus is that coverage is just weak, then so be it. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose revert I totally think that any ITNR item NEEDS some decent presence in the news. If nobody in the real press covers the event, then why does an item essentially get an automatic post here? Nergaal (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If it's not in the news, it shouldn't be here. That's the reason why ITNR exists: to avoid recurring arguments if this a blurb is "in the news". –HTD 14:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Not exactly. ITNR establishes notability, not newsworthiness. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
        • ITN doesn't factor in "newsworthiness" unless it's ongoing. –HTD 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

ITN requirements consist of several factors, some of which correlate, while others do not:

  1. The target article needs to be updated.
  2. The target article needs to meet home-page quality standards.
  3. The item needs to be "in the news".
  4. The item needs to be unusual or particularly important or listed on ITN/R.

Many things are "in the news" but fail criteria 4. ITN/R attempts to avoid redundant discussions about criteria 4. There are many things "in the news" (criteria 3) that fail criteria 4. If the stock market drops 300 points, that will be all over the news everywhere, but it's not so unusual that it would satisfy 4. On the other hand, an item that meets 4 will almost always satisfy 3, but once in a while there's an exception, such as an election in a very minor nation. ITN/R is marked as a Guideline, not a Policy. Read the box at the top of the page. It says, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." My edit seeks to point out the relevant factors for applying common sense and making the occasional exception. Jehochman Talk 17:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Another approach: Changing the "General Guidelines"[edit]

In light of the discussion above, it is clear that a flexible approach is needed to satisfy all the parties and bring together a series of divergent but mostly valid arguments. To this end, it may be better to simply revisit and redefine the guidelines to a state that everyone can reasonably agree with.

Current guidelines state:

Existing Elections ITNR Guidelines

  • The results of the elections for head of state:
    • In the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where the head of state is an elected position
    • Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included
  • The succession of a head of state:
    • In the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where head of state is not an elected position.

Note that coronations, inaugurations, etc. are generally not posted. Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits. If election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted.

Proposed changed guidelines:

New Elections ITNR Guidelines

Please note:

  • ITNR serves as a general guideline, not an absolute binding list. As such, general notability, newsworthiness, and article quality requirements should be taken into consideration when nominating any election-related item. An editor nominating an ITNR election item should be aware that an election that technically fits the ITNR requirements does not receive an automatic 'pass' should an administrator deem there be sufficient and reasonable opposition to its posting during the nomination process. Elections of disputed states, dependent territories, sub-national entities, and elections that do not generate wide news coverage, such as those of micro-states, can be nominated, but should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.

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

I'm hopeful we can achieve a workable consensus on this. Colipon+(Talk) 17:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I am fine with these additional clarifications. Nergaal (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no reason to have special guidelines for the elections listing beyond the general rules of ITN/R. We already know that ITN/R is a guideline, not an absolute rule. Phrases like "do not generate wide new coverage" are also very vague and a recipe for more disputes. Neljack (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Neljack: OK, if you statement is true, PLEASE explain to me how an election in Cook Islands got posted on ITN even though it had overwhelming oppose votes at ITNC? Nergaal (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
One of the biggest frustrations I have working in the ITN space is editors' liberally throwing around "oppose" whenever something new is proposed. This is one of the reasons we can never get anything done, is that someone will always disagree with something in any given proposal. This is not intended to be a perfect solution - my intent is to gather others' opinions on these guidelines, so everyone is free to suggest alternatives, or changes in the wording to the above, so that we can work towards a common goal. Colipon+(Talk) 19:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have any more input on this issue? Colipon+(Talk) 17:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd support moves in adding "exceptions" to the rule (or even "new rules") as long as it's done properly and not via just randomly drawing "exceptions" out of each other butts. Just like what was done to recent deaths and ongoing. –HTD 17:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see a need for this change. I don't think we need to broadly state that there could be exceptions. An election not being newsworthy should be pointed out as such during any nomination, as well as any other issues which could preclude its posting(which can happen with any nomination already). 331dot (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Election nominations are not just "normal" noms. They're supposed to "automatically pass what's in the criteria". By having this, that means they'd revert to "normal noms" and we don't have to argue if it's still an ITNR nom or not. –HTD 17:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • That is not exactly correct; ITNR means that it passes notability, not newsworthiness or quality. There is nothing wrong with the idea that sovereign state elections in general are ITNR but there might be limited exceptions(which is general Wikipedia policy anyway) based on quality and newsworthiness. If someone wants to argue that, say, Sao Tome's election was not "in the news"; that argument can be made. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
        • This again? And you made it even wronger. ITNR assumes newsworthiness and quality, and that notability is nowhere to be found in WP:ITNR. Let's not make stuff up... well, let's make stuff up and put it on the page so we'd have something to stand on aside from IAR, which I could like... ignore too. –HTD 18:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
          • It's "this again" because it is correct.....quality and newsworthiness are not assumed by ITNR. I suggest you read the ITNR page again, as it states "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page before being posted. Listing here is not an automatic guarantee that an item will be posted." 331dot (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
            • (ec) Ummm yes, quality isn't assumed as the admin should see if it's updated, so you're right on that. But "newsworthiness" is assumed. That's why it's listed here: the Super Bowl, Nobel Prizes, great comets and everything in here are "newsworthy" enough. If they aren't newsworthy enough, they should be removed.
              • That is certainly an argument that can be made for removing something, but it's not that simple. The Super Bowl is a specific event, not a broad category of events like elections from states on the List of sovereign states. With any broad category there will be exceptions, at least without more specific criteria(which has been tried and failed many times). 331dot (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
                • You're right, that's why this suggestion is instituting something different so that we'd have something to stand on every time disputes flare up. Once we have this, we can move on much quickly. –HTD 19:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • I don't see how this does that and it seems like instruction creep to me. The more things you write down, the more arguments there are about how to interpret what is written; there aren't fewer arguments. We already state that an ITNR listing is not a guarantee of posting. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
                    • I considered having a separate RFC on each and every sovereign state election, and on what type (do German presidential elections get in?), but called it off until the discussion above ends. Call it as creep, but once we have that that'll save us a lot of misery. –HTD 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
                      • I don't know if it would save misery or not, but there is also systemic bias to consider; most of these small countries have few advocates here. I think that's part of the rationale behind "all states" on the list. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
                        • It'll save us misery once there's a list. WP:FOOTBALL has a list of pro leagues, even the list of countries is arbitrary. If those can be made, I don't see why not do that here. And this suggestion is the first step, not bringing up arguments every time elections from small countries happen. –HTD 19:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Also, if you'd "link" "newsworthiness" with "importance", ITNR assumes newsworthiness. The only way something on this list can't be added is if no one nominates it, or if no one updates it. That's it. –HTD 18:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
              • ITNR does not assume newsworthiness; it must be demonstrated by the nominator. If it is, then there is no issue. Not being nominated is one indication of a lack of newsworthiness, but sometimes ITNR noms are made without a news story. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
                • ITNR does assume newsworthiness, other wise, it would say "you have to demonstrate newsworthiness". It doesn't say that. It just say, "nominate the article and update it." That's it. –HTD 19:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • This page is called "In the news"; a fundamental aspect of that is that nominated stories need to be demonstrated to be in the news. If we really need to write that down I suppose we could- but it seems common sense to me. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
                    • Like I said elsewhere, we'd have to define "news" the same way WP:FA defines what an FA should be. The "purpose" section sorta does that anyway. If we're basing arguments via that section it would be better rather than just random definitions by anyone who wants to say something. –HTD 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Gents, the point of this discussion, I reiterate, is not to throw around "oppose" liberally to every proposal, but rather to work towards a solution everyone can work with. Therefore, if you do not like the specifics of this solution, suggest tweaks or an alternative solution, do not just come here, "Oppose" something, point out what you think is wrong, and then wash your hands. Suggest something that you think will have the highest likelihood of gaining consensus. Otherwise, we will never get anywhere. Colipon+(Talk) 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • As I said above(and feel free to condense if you wish, unless HTD objects), I don't feel this change is needed. Existing text already states that being on ITNR is not a guarantee of posting. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't care about condensing anything, but the discussion brought out the fact some people would go with what we have right now, which is not much, instead of trying out things to see if it's better. –HTD 20:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Let me try to reframe this, @331dot:. I hope you will feel sympathetic while that there might not be something "terribly wrong" with the status quo, surely you will recognize that there are people who are dissatisfied by it, or at least people who are confused by it. There is also clearly some inconsistencies between the ITN general criteria and the ITNR guidelines. So my question for you is, would you feel extremely uncomfortable and categorically opposed, if we "try out" the solution suggested above for a period of time to see how it operates, if only to see if it is an improvement over the status quo, and we revisit this six months from now to see if things have improved? What do you think? Colipon+(Talk) 21:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I think you are putting the cart before the horse, as I don't yet see consensus for a change here on this discussion. Aside from you, there is only one supporter so far. That said, personally I think any change should be intended to be for good and not any sort of trial, but would I be categorically opposed to one or uncomfortable? Probably not.
I recognize that with any system based on the participation of all involved, there will always be those who are dissatisfied. I also recognize that there will always be those who are confused. I have no problem with the concept of reducing confusion or increasing satisfaction, but that doesn't change my position on this. I further recognize that your efforts are well-intentioned and have nothing but decent motives. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Another suggestion[edit]

  • Given the discussion about the US midterm election, and the notion that the term "general election" somehow excludes nations without parliamentary systems, I would propose the following text:

New Elections ITNR Guidelines

Please note:

  • Elections of disputed states, dependent territories, sub-national entities, legislative elections where control of the body does not change, and elections that do not generate wide news coverage, such as those of micro-states, can be nominated, but should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.

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

  • My thoughts:
  1. Changing "general election" to "national legislative elections" removes the ambiguity over which elections are "general elections" and which aren't. It wouldn't change not posting un-newsworthy ones.
  2. I don't think the text about how these events are not always posted is necessary, as it is already general policy which is stated on the ITNR page(Listing here is not an automatic guarantee that an item will be posted).
  3. I'm also wondering if we should address the notion that a change in control of a legislative body or lack thereof somehow affects whether or not an election is posted. Many elections are highly newsworthy even when control doesn't change, and many aren't so(single party states). I have suggested some text regarding that; maybe we don't need to write down anything, but I thought we should at least bring it up. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't get the massive antagonism vs. the US midterms when ITN has had posted legislative elections where the most powerful office isn't even in play such as French legislative election, 2012, South Korean legislative election, 2012 and even the in limbo Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2014 (needs an update?). ITN has routinely considered such elections as "general elections". –HTD 15:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but my posting the nomination as an ITNR item was criticized as not being a "general election" per the definition given in its article and the ITNR tag was struck from the nomination. I wasn't sure about other similar situations like you describe at the time. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose To be honest I am amazed there is so much confusion on this point. Look at all the media coverage and compare it to two years ago - it was "mid terms" last night vs "general election" two years ago - this is not some kind of subtle distinction of academic interest only.
This is not something that is discriminatory, it is a simple distinction based on whether the executive is subject to change. The US gets it coverage, it simply doesn't get a second mention for a lower tier election. Americans themselves are fond of describing their President as "Leader of the Free World" and other such terms which itself is an acknowledgement that all other positions are playing second fiddle.
As for the merits of adding, I refer back to my earlier comments: if we are already posting too many elections we do not make a bad situation worse by covering still more elections. If we continue to do so the coverage of this one issue will dominate coverage to the exclusion of everything else. Remember that each story posted is another that is knocked of the template so there has to be a consensus for each and every one of them to over-ride the removal of the story that got consensus in the usual consensus building process. As it is we haven't been given an impact assessment of this proposal. How many extra elections does it introduce. I would have thought it the nominator's job to determine whether we are introduce 10, 20 or 50 or 100 extra elections when as the above discussion makes clear we are already posting far more than there is real consensus for. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You are entitled to your beliefs, but I think the Republican Party would strongly disagree that this was a "lower tier" election, as do I. The President does not have to be on the ballot for it to be important(and the Republicans succeeded in putting Obama on the ballot even though he technically was not). 331dot (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't really introduce any more elections than there is now. If anything, there would be fewer, as it is clearer that newsworthiness of the election plays a role in whether or not it gets posted. As for the listing in general, there have been many attempts to somehow narrow down the criteria(population cutoff, G20 nations, etc.), and all have failed to obtain consensus. If you have new ideas to somehow limit what is posted, I would be willing to hear your ideas. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears there's some confusion on what the term "general election" means:
  • Oxford (Amer.): "A regular election of candidates for office, as opposed to a primary election."
  • Oxford (Br.): " The election of representatives to a legislature (in the UK, to the House of Commons) from constituencies throughout the country."
  • Merriam-Webster: "an election usually held at regular intervals in which candidates are elected in all or most constituencies of a nation or state"
  • Macmillan (Amer.): "an election in which every adult in the country can vote for the people who will represent them in government"
  • Macmillan (Br.): "an election in which every adult in the country can vote for the people who will represent them in parliament"
With these definitions, which among these does the 2014 U.S. elections fail to satisfy? –HTD 22:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Is that the best you can come up with? Citing one lien definitions from compact dictionaries. In any case the point is moot: ITN/R does not reference any of those dictionaries, it references out own article. If you want further evidence simply look at news reporting: a quick Google for this election shows it was always referred to as the midterms, never the general election. In 2012 the situation was slightly less clear cut since the elections were frequently broken down into the subcomponents (Presidential and Congressional elections or President, Senate and House) but General Election was definitely used to describe them in aggregate. Again look at Google if you need evidence. This is an attempt to re-define a commonly understood terms to give one country double the coverage it deserves. Sorry but that doesn't wash.
For that reason I also oppose the proposed amendment. This has clearly been advanced for one country but it is being proposed for all countries. You have to defend this for the least significant country in question, not the most. You also need to show how this improves the balance of our coverage - this amendment include tin-pot rubber stamp assemblies such as North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly. Hardly an exercise in democracy and holds very little power in practice. It also worsens the cliff edge around our definition of sovereign state so that relatively populous, economics powerful self governing territories such as Bermuda don't get any coverage at all when other smaller, less significance countries potentially get two lots of countries. Systemic bias cuts both ways - it covers preferential treatment of smaller countries just as much as seeking not to over-emphasise a few countries in particular. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
So basically, you're picking an uncited Wikipedia article over the Oxford English Dictionary. If this was some RFC, you'd know who'd win. Let's not be silly. U.S. media calls this as a "general election". Sure, if we'd disregard that, well, we might as well disregard several elections where the position in power isn't in play, like the recent Ukrainian election which was heavily supported but never updated. We'd also be disregarding French legislative elections. I look at "midterm elections" as a subset of so-called "general elections". –HTD 12:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I support changing the wording from "general elections" to "national legislative elections", particularly in light of the ambiguity of the former. I do not support excluding "legislative elections where control of the body does not change, and elections that do not generate wide news coverage, such as those of micro-states" from being ITN/R. The re-election of a government or legislative majority may be just as significant as a change in power. And if the contrary view is taken the principle should not also extent to presidential elections. But I cannot see why, for instance, the last US Presidential election should be considered less significant because President Obama was re-elected than it would have been if Romney had won. The reference to not generating widespread news coverage would just generate lots of unproductive argument over just how much news coverage is necessary and whether the bar has been met in particular cases. ITN/R needs to have clear rules - the whole point of ITN/R is frustrated if it is unclear whether something is ITN/R or not, since it is designed to avoid unnecessary discussion not create it - and this proposal is unacceptably vague. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem, quite plainly, is that many people do not accept current ITN/R criteria on national elections, so we need some common sense way of making for some exceptions. Even if I or the next guy begrudgingly accept this very flawed premise that all elections of "sovereign states" must be included in ITNR, we will continue to face opposition from others who see no sense in it. And frankly, given the amount of discussions it generates every time one of these 'insignificant' elections get posted, I can't understand how anyone can wish this problem away by simply forcing down people's throats the clearly unacceptable status quo. So, if you disagree with what has been proposed above, then please suggest an alternative that you think will bring us a bit closer to consensus. Regards, Colipon+(Talk) 02:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Royal births[edit]

I'd like to propose an addition to ITN/R - the birth of an heir to a throne. Current discussion re the birth of an heir to the Monagesque throne reveals that such an event is not currently ITN/R. Note that this proposal is not saying that all royal births should be ITN/R, but only those were the baby is 1st in line to the throne on birth. Mjroots (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I thought ITN/R was only for awards/prize/election/competition results? --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For a start, if I understand the ITNR rules properly, you have to get a specimen story of the appropriate type through the regular process first. If the current one fails, that's a pretty good indication that royal births should not be ITNR. But here's another conundrum: the male of the two Monegasque twins is first in line to that throne, after his father, the ruling Prince. Prince George of Cambridge is third in line to the multitude of Commonwealth realms. So if the twins subsequently acquire a younger sister, will she also be considered, seeing as she also would be third in line? The whole thing is a morass. If the Monegasque nomination passes, and if a sufficiently robust set of criteria can be advanced, then we could consider it. But I'd still be opposed. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@AlexTiefling: - no, a third Monegasque royal would not be ITNR. The proposal is only where the child becomes heir to a throne on birth. All other royal births to be discussed at ITNC on a case by case basis. Apologies for jumping the gun with the proposal, but I don't see why it can't be discussed. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Which is almost never, unless the current monarch had no children when they ascended the throne. In modern times that's almost unheard of. For example, when Prince George was born the British royal family still had three generations to get through before him. Modest Genius talk 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current nomination you alluded to seems to be leaning against posting. That alone should show there is no conensus to make a royal birth an automatic for ITN. -- Calidum 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As noted above, ITN/R's purpose is to streamline our handling of recurring events for which the determination of sufficient notability enjoys clear and stable consensus, not to bypass the determination of consensus and push through items in its absence. (In other words, nothing should be posted at ITN because it's listed here; we list events here because suitable article updates consistently lead to their posting at ITN.) —David Levy 00:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose' per the reasons given. Each such birth should be considered on its own merits. The next in line for a single city state is very different than someone in line to be the head of state of numerous nations. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose in agreement with 331dot. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per David Levy. Modest Genius talk 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some royal births may be ITN, but I can't see thing being across the board to accept without additional discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

La Liga[edit]

I propose adding the Spanish La Liga, as it is one of the top 3 leagues in the world by most accounts, and is certainly of utmost importance in its home country. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support At least as strong a league as the English Premier League. If we have one on ITN/R, we should have the other too. Soccer, like it or not, is the most popular sport in the world by some distance, and I don't think adding this would give it too much representation. Neljack (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This has previously been discussed (or at least mentioned) in May 2009, March 2011, January 2013 ,and May 2013. We also already have five soccer stories running each year, so I'd be hesitant to support putting another on item on ITNR. My opinion may change, however, depending on how some editors feel about another football match that will without a doubt be nominated on January 12. -- Calidum 04:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
In further reflection, I oppose this proposal. There's no reason this can't go through the regular process at ITNC. -- Calidum 18:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Last year, the La Liga was posted as a combo blurb with the Premier League and FA Cup Final(!). 2013-14 had an epic finish though, so it'll be interesting on how things turn out if the final matchday isn't as exciting. –HTD 18:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support it's apparent that this league attracts the top players in the known universe, such as Messi, Ronaldo, Bale etc. It seems illogical to allow the Premier League a free pass while suggesting La Liga isn't on that level. We will need to deal with merging blurbs to prevent having too many "end of football season" blurbs inundating ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not boing ITNR won't prevent it from getting supports at ITNC. There will be some years when there will be so many "X wins championship Y in football" news packed within a couple of weeks that I see no reason to have this ITNR. If it will be notable, people will support it at ITNC. Nergaal (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    Could do just explain why it's less significant than the Premier League? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Why is this more important than Bundesliga? I would rather nave none than all 3 at ITNR. Once things get added they never come down. Nergaal (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You tell me. If you'd like to see the Bundesliga champions as ITNR, you're welcome to nominate it. In the meantime, your oppose (including the "boing") is applicable to every single ITN nomination in the history of ITN. The point of ITNR is to assign significance to those events we deem important, and all we look for is a suitable update. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this rather large tournament, in a rather large country, as I believe it will interest many Wikipedians. I would also support merging blurbs if many countries' tournaments end at near the same time. Mamyles (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, as this clearly has more following than some of the listed items in ITNR such as the rugby union club tournaments. –HTD 11:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)