Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

For discussion of election criteria see Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections.

Add Turner Prize

As the BBC note, "one of the art world's most prestigious prizes" and in comparison with some of the other ITN/R entries under art (such as the Struga Poetry Evenings), Turner gets orders of magnitude more interest. Incidentally, not suggesting this should apply this year, of course, just that it should apply hereafter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Think this should be added. We don't have any prizes for visual art in the list, and if you google "world's most prestigious art prize", it seems like the Turner Prize is actually main contender, even if it is not international. Formerip (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Only if support is absolutely overwhelming in the present ITN/C discussion. There is already some dispute, and we should get an international perspective. UK media are all over it for two days a year, but that is not an indicator of global relevance. Kevin McE (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Support if someone can prove that "British artists under 50" are the best artists in the world just as the players playing in the Australian Football League are the best players of Aussie rules football in the world. –HTD 03:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to note that the likes of Da Vinci won't win the "most prestigious arts award" if this was given when he was alive. –HTD 12:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you on about? Da Vinci lived in an era of patronage, and certainly received awards from the top patrons. But there's no way to know how a Renaissance artist would fare in the modern arts world - it's pure speculation. One can't meaningfully 'note' a 'fact' you just made up. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should've been clearer: Da Vinci would've not qualified in the first place, as he is not British (or English at the time), or was known to have made a British (English) sojourn unless I missed something. –HTD 12:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

True. But without wishing to praise my own nation too much, it might be fair to suggest that in Da Vinci's day, an equivalent benefaction would undoubtedly have been targeted at young Italian artists. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that ought to answer my question if "British artists under 50" are the best artists in the world just as AFL players are the best Aussie rules players in the world. –HTD 13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are not ipso facto the best, at all! But it seems to be the prevailing opinion in the business (which I used to have some professional contact with) that a significant proportion of those who are the best are either British or working in Britain. I have no idea where the age bar comes from. I feel that these self-fulfilling prophecies are damaging for the diversity of the field, and lead to ridiculous ideas like Martin Creed's Olympics art project which was deemed impracticable by the people who'd actually have to do the work. But despite these obvious flaws, this is where the ostensibly wise heads of the art business think it's at. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, let me clear: No one can prove anyone is at the best at anything anyway. The thing is if there's this impression than British artists under 50 are perceived by many to be the best. If that somehow can be proven, then this should be added, provided it passes ITN/C.

I've tried snooping around for some empirical proofs, such as most expensive paintings sold since 1984, but those are hard to come by. This is similar to AFL players being the most highly paid Aussie rules players; and being a highly paid AFL player must be first-name basis in Aussieland. Dunno if a highly paid visual artist is the same thing in the UK –HTD 13:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For many of the more conceptual artists, sale prices may not even exist. Creed, for example, won the Turner in 2001 for an empty room whose lights go on and off. This work isn't capable of being sold, even in principle. The prize and its nominations are regarded by some in the business as an indicator of significance, even of quality, in their own right. I'd love to disagree, but in the absence of a more objective criterion, I don't know what to suggest. As for "first name basis", only reality TV stars tend to get that treatment over here. But I'd suggest that Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst are household names beyond the chatterati.AlexTiefling (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, people such as One Direction and Wayne Rooney must be names that are well known by every British household, wouldn't it? Otherwise, if reality TV stars (which should be the very opposite of art) are the well-known people in the UK, then that goes against the essence of the award, which should be well known by the British public a la the FA Cup or even the BRIT Awards for it to be in ITNR. –HTD 13:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing too things I think. Level of celebrity of participants has nothing to do with ITNR criteria, at least not to the extent you suggest. How many people will know the name of the current BWF champion, or even what one is? Or who won last year's Eurovision? The point is, that when someone wins the Turner prize it makes them the most talked-about person in the world in their field. That's what makes it suitable for ITNR. Formerip (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What you say might be true. However, if dunno what the BWF is, but Eurovision is a well known event even outside its niche -- if you consider singing contests where contestants represent nations as a niche -- for it to be in ITNR. The question is if the Turner Award is well known outside its niche to be accorded ITNR status. One way is to look at page view stats during the "off-season." As the page view stats are really hard to access these days, I don't really know how things such as Eurovision, the BRITs and the FA Cup stand. As for haterz of the page view stats, they can be safely used here as the example pertain to one country so we don't have to account population differences. –HTD 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Page view stats tell you something about how popular it is, not how significant it is, but it's easy to run comparisons. [1] [2] [3]. So it's a little less popular than Eurovision, and much more popular than the BWF Chamionships. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I was trying to explain that 'first name basis', understood literally, is not a good guide to who is actually well-known or notable; it has as much to do with how people are discussed in the popular press as how they would otherwise be discussed in the pub. I'd say that, at least in the black-top press (broadsheet and tabloid combined), and the mainstream broadcast news, the Turner Prize gets a highly significant level of coverage. Yes, comparable to the BRIT Awards (outside the fact that the awards ceremony itself is broadcast, because of its performance content, whereas the Turner's generally isn't). Not the FA Cup so much - that's a whole other, er, ball game.AlexTiefling (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the award's criteria "British under 50" is too narrow. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose- Best artist from a certain country isn't saying much. Otherwise, we would have to post for all moderately large countries with similar awards. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support - Sadly, this probably is the premier art prize in the world, despite its absurdly narrow scope and known cultural biases. I don't have to like it to think that it's significant. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination on ITN/C. I believe it should be on the front page, and has the credibility, breadth and depth to be expected by a wider audience to be there. However clearly a debate is ongoing about its worth, and I'd rather not see the nomination clubbed to death in the meantime doktorb _words^deeds 14:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't blame you. The nomination here, perhaps should have been to remove the Struga Poetry Evenings instead as it's clearly nonsense we keep that and oppose this prize. But naturally, I would say that.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The prize is important from the British perspective, but not from a global one. As Hot Stop said, the criterion is too narrow. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Add FIFA Ballon d'Or

As FIFA are the governing body of world association football, this is the most authoritative selection as to the best player in the world - the award used to be called "FIFA World Player of the Year" before it merged with a French award. All current soccer ITNR items relate to clubs or nations, this would be an addition to reflect individual achievement in the sport.

Occurs annually in early January. Attracts significant media attention and is global in scope and interest. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this hasn't gone through ITNC, so any discussion here is premature. It wasn't even nominated there this year. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  OK, I wasn't aware of this rule. See you in January I guess! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the only notability this year was Messi being given the award 4 times in a row. It's no different from the Hart Trophy, the Heisman Trophy, or the Maurice Podoloff Trophy. We don't need to be a ticker for professional athletes patting each other on the back. --IP98 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, for the same rationale it has been posted on ITN previously.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Add Death of World's Oldest Person (Ticker)

Item: The death of the world's oldest (verified) person, as listed on Oldest People. A Recent Deaths ticker item - posting a full blurb in an exceptional case would be a matter for ITN/C discussion.

ITN/C precedent: Dina Manfredini. During this discussion it was noted that posting this and not Besse Cooper who died a couple of weeks ago seems unbalanced. Adding this item to ITN/R would help achieve consistency.

Recurrence: Obviously impossible to predict, but looking at Oldest People it seems the average "reign" is about a year (53 different title holders since 1955).

Brief Rationale: The oldest person alive is of simple encyclopaedic relevance, and this obviously changes upon death. The use of the ticker seems a succinct and neat way to make mention of these encyclopaedic events. While the names are unlikely to be immediately recognisable to most readers, the articles will generally state the person's supercenturion status in the first sentence or two.

Note: While there are many longevity claims out there, this would need to be restricted to verified claims, i.e. those that make the listings at Oldest People.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support this idea and the criteria. Good to have consistency in this area. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• I lean oppose, actually. But then, I personally don't think a person is even notable simply for being old. Hell, the closest thing any of these people ever do to become notable is die. In the example case, Manfredini literally did nothing of note in her entire life. This does not warrant an automatic spot at ITN. We may as well start posting other special interest stories to ITN while we are at it. Ikea Monkey was cute. We should post that. Resolute 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Being old is not an inherently notable achievement. Being older than anyone ever would be, but not just being older than anyone at a particular time. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Being lucky or skilled enough to survive over 110 years of war, disease, accidents, etc. isn't notable? I guess the media should stop mentioning it, then. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The media haven't given up on long-lens photographs of actresses, either. Shall we post some of those? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Paparazzi photographs are for better or worse a normal part of society and not unusual, while doing something the vast overwhelming majority of people won't do("being old") is very unusual. Apples and oranges. If the world's oldest person can't be in the deaths ticker then I don't know who could be. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference between this and the examples Alex is citing is the encyclopaedic relevance of the events. While collecting long-lens photos of celebrities is of no use to an encyclopaedia, cataloguing longevity records is something a decent encyclopaedia would expect to do. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The "average" reign is a year, but less than a third (16) have lasted that long...so the data's kind of worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.124.5 (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Such data would tend to an exponential distribution - meaning that the mean (~1 yr) would be greater than the median (~8 months). The mean however remains the best estimate of how often the story would recur over an indefinite period of time. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I would be inclined to oppose had the death ticker not existed, but this type of death is exactly what it was made for. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is a typical reader likely to be especially interested? I don't think so. Formerip (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And I do think so. Neither of us can judge what the "typical reader" of a global website is interested in; non-American football fans will be disinterested in the Super Bowl; non-UK citizens won't be interested in their Royal Family, etc. I happen to think this subject is something that all people can relate to. The question is the notability, not our opinions of what hypothetical "typical readers" want to read. 331dot (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you greatly over-estimate the interest of many UK residents in the Windsors. Kevin McE (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So was I hallucinating the people taking part in events over the Diamond Jubilee weekend? FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is also queen of 15 (16?) other countries and so there might be some interest there.

Also, parphrasing Kevin, I think you greatly under-estimate the interest of many US residents in the House of Windsor. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this ought to be discussed each time. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? 331dot (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Why not? Hot Stop (Talk) 04:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The same reason for the existence of ITN/R. It saves us from needless discussion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the personal details of the title holder are very rarely of any importance at all other than the fact that they are breathing. Kevin McE (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If you end up being the oldest person I bet you will think it is important. If it's so unimportant then the media should stop mentioning it. It is always going to be brought up manually, yet its approval is inconsistent at best. If we don't have something like that in the ticker, then it should just be removed, since there is little point if we are going to prohibit things like this from it. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, God, No! I suggested this as a joke. Let them all be nominated separately, and if seven die over a seven-day period, then God help us all. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly against this proposal, but neutral on whether such people should get a full blurb. These people are not celebrities, and do not really fall into a particular field. As such, very few people will have heard of them. If they are going to go on the Main Page, they should have full blurbs to explain who they are. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• God No! and that was my honest reaction before I saw Medias' comment above. This is trivia that is likely unsubstantiated in most cases anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

On Association Football Leagues

I was looking on the ITN/R items for Association Football, and noticed that there's one national league competition in there: the English Premier League.

This is probably fairly newsworthy, especially in English speaking territories, but most people who follow European football will probably say the dominant world club league is currently La Liga, not the EPL. Thought I might open a discussion here about what to do with this. We could post both, post neither, or replace the EPL with La Liga. Maybe because we're an English-language outfit we should stick with the status quo. Thoughts? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd favour adding La Liga, and not removing the EPL. I don't think 'we're in English' is any justification for being Anglocentric. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Replace Premier League with La Liga- It has a higher quality of play and gets more international coverage. There have been a lot of recent complaints about too much football, so just La Liga should be enough. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Lol. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 12:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why my comment got that response. I am aware that Britons hold the EPL as eons ahead of other football leagues, but the fact is La Liga is as good if not better, and LOL isn't much of a counterargument to what I said. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm guessing it was down to your personal opinion-based approach that La Liga was somehow has "higher quality" and has "more international coverage", the first is purely subjective, the second is plain false. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep both. Also, why not Serie A and the Bundesliga as well? Those leagues have historically been ranked with the EPL and La Liga in terms of league strength. See UEFA coefficient#History which clearly indicates them as the historically top 4 leagues in terms of league strength. I'm all for more inclusiveness on ITN. We're far too elitist and restrictive there as it is. --Jayron32 06:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Tentative support - I really don't think we have too many football articles. I'm not fan myself, but I think it's really good and important that we cover culturally-significant activities as well as the usual news diet of war, politics and death. And as football is the world's most popular sport, and has demonstrated that it is an enduring cultural phenomenon with wider relevance, I think it's sensible that we should report on it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep EPL and add La Liga. EPL has to be the most followed league in any sport in the world, and La Liga has increased its prominence in English speaking media lately so there's no reason for ditching one to add the other. Undecided on Serie A and Bundesliga though, as a previous discussion here has produced a "consensus" that we're not considering "that much" the "highest level of the sport" argument, at least when compared to interest. Plus, I think (their respective season articles' infoboxes don't mention the start and end dates, which is like major fail) the EPL and La Liga end at somewhat different times of the year so we wouldn't be barraged with soccer blurbs. –HTD 09:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep EPL and add La Liga and Serie A. Frankly, removing the world's most watched league would be idiotic. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Premier League only A fairly widely held opinion is that in terms of the strength of the teams, the Spanish big two are some way ahead of any two given English clubs, but in turn if you look at all 20 teams in each country then the Premier League is some way ahead. That's questionable, but it's certainly true to say that the typical Premier League teams (the Stokes and West Hams) are streets ahead of typical La Liga teams (the Getafes and Real Valladolids) both in terms of the amount of media coverage they receive, and fans through the turnstiles.

  Don't get the bolded part of my post wrong, I'm very happy to post La Liga. I think we would be discriminating against football purely because of its popularity if we didn't post it. Nonetheless, when we start posting the Premier League, La Liga, and UEFA Champions League in relatively quick succession, there will be calls from non-football fans for us to post fewer competitions. While I would disagree with those calls, they would be understandable and would garner significant support. Given that the Premier League will be posted whether it's ITNR or not (much like the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup or World Series), it belongs on ITNR in the interests of saving time. Rightly or wrongly, La Liga does not fall into that same category, and therefore that is the one which should apply for year-by-year consensus. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 12:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if we were to give baseball the same treatment being proposed here for football, we would post the American League champions, the National League Champions, the world series, and possibly the MLB MVP. Of course, my friends across the pond would crap their pants at that amount of "US centric sports news", which is precisely how I feel about all this Euro-football. --IP98 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you ever have a discussion at or about ITN without dragging your contempt for non-American things into it? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, off the top of my head, I guess [4] and [5]. I took a bit of a break after the Messi travesty. Upon what are you basing your accusations? --IP98 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose La Liga, Neutral Premier - Plenty of football already. --IP98 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Premiership. Not keen on La Liga—I'm not opposed, but it's too much of a two-horse race for me to find it worth reporting on; it's basically a "better" SPL. Top-to-bottom, England's Premiership is widely reported upon and hosts a very international lineup which make it a good choice to go with. GRAPPLE X 20:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• My suggestion would be to put La Liga and the EPL into a single blurb when appropriate. I think it should stop there in terms of domestic football leagues. So my !vote is to add La Liga while keeping the EPL but with my suggestion above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Problem with that is that, if a team is very sucessful, they can be in an unnassailable position (generally considered having won) with weeks to go. As such it's difficult to predict when these two stories will occur. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Seems removing the Premiership wouldn't be that popular. I'll try and remember to nominate La Liga at ITN/C this year and if it passes we could have a ITN/R decision. Personally I'd be sympathetic if someone nominated Seria A and the Bundesliga as well. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep EPL and add La Liga. The major national leagues with worldwide press coverage. NickSt (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep EPL and add La Liga for sure. They are the two most important. I am also open to the possibility of adding Serie A and Bundesliga. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also add La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga and FIFA Club World Cup As a non-football person myself, how many countries play and watch football compared to say basketball and cricket? The world should not have to revolve around the UK since the former two are in the same scale as the other two and the latter because it is one tier up from the Copa Libertadores and the UEFA Champions League. Anybody who want to disagree on its importance, the two links tell you that the South American teams take this event seriously.[6] [7]. Donnie Park (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove Dakar Rally from ITN/R

As suggested at the current ITN/C nomination, should Dakar Rally be removed from the Recurring Item list?

I am neutral on the matter.. doktorb _words^deeds 11:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support for removal. This event doesn't seem to have a wide appeal anywhere from what I can see right now; there certainly is not much coverage of the current holding of it. I could potentially change my mind if supporters of keeping it explained why it should be here. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unless the current discussion at ITN/C takes a very different turn. Per my previous comments on the Venice festival and All Ireland Football: response at ITN/C shows that support is not so overwhelming that it can be assumed. ITN/R should not be a tail that wags the ITN/C dog: it should serve ITN/C by making recurrent obvious landslide supports unnecessary, it should not undermine ITN/C by stating that consensus is irrelevant as it has already been determined.
  

Too many items listed here fall under the same category. Items are added to the list even under a less than overwhelming consensus here, among a tiny number of editors; that then becomes the basis for ignoring a consensus of a much larger group at the candidates page.
The only items for which consensus can be assumed are those for which we could equally easily assume snow support after a few votes. ITN/R, like the minority topics list, was a worthy suggestion, but should probably now be abandoned. At any rate, any ITN/R item that meets non-negligible opposition at ITN/C should be removed from ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong keep it's a top tier tournament in a major motorsport classification. It's 1 story per year, if the article is updated. It hurts precisely nothing. --IP98 (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's so top tier, why is it so difficult to find coverage of it? 331dot (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:NOHARM is also not an argument. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • was easy enough for me to find. Look at the stuff on this list: netball, table tennis, snooker, none of that is making "the front page of bbc.com" either, but so what? If all that mattered was popularity we would post 50 soccer stories a year, 35 cricket stories, and nothing else because "it's not widely covered". --IP98 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I could understand that worldwide popularity might not be a consideration, but I'm not seeing where this is hugely popular on a regional or national basis. Popularity and widespread coverage should be important for ITNR. Less popular events should be discussed on a per-event basis. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Being a top level event in one classification has never been grounds for ITN/R listing. If it were, the women's powerlifting -63kg title could be celebrated every year at ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Aren't we having this same discussion in the nom? The ITN/R item isn't "mens age 35-43 close top 4wd raid rally", is simply "rally racing", all rally races. This is a big event, with a number of disciplines (bike, quad (open wheel), car, truck). I would not be so vehemently opposed to some sort of "world powerlifting championship" getting on ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevant point here is that being top level event in a sport is not grounds for listing on ITN/R. Saying that it should be included because it is top level of one classification of one particular type of event within a sport falls well short of the grounds for ITN/R inclusion. I illustrated the point with an extreme, but comparable, counter-example. Kevin McE (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Aren't those called straw man attacks? Ultimately I don't care, but if the Dakar Rally goes, we'll need to initiate an overhaul of all sporting events on ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Your grounds for including the Dakar Rally, and you are confident enough in the grounds to make it a strong keep !vote, is "it's a top tier tournament in a major motorsport classification." Assuming that you don't believe that motor sport should be treated differently to other sports, you would be logically obligated to support ITN/R listing of "top tier tournament" results in major classifications of other sports. Is that your position? If not, is the reason that you believe that motor sport should be treated differently, or that your argument is not based on "it's a top tier tournament"?

I have repeatedly called for a radically reassessment of ITN/R, and not only for sports, but I see nothing particular about this event that would trigger it. How exactly is exclusion of the Dakar rally inconsistent with the principles of ITN/R? Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the principles, but the list. If the Dakar Rally goes, so should gaelic football, snooker, etc. --IP98 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is the removal of these dependent on the result of this proposal? Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I ask the same question. IP98 - look at the top of the page, and elsewhere, when individual items have gone through the removal process and they've been retained. You can't say "one goes, they all go", because that's not how Wikipedia works, as you well know, but furthermore you can't say "one goes, all goes" when discussions have been so fairly in favour of retention after an open and fair discussion. It's my view that ITN/R needs reform, major reform, and that might mean throwing the whole thing open to a project-wide debate. For now, we do things piecemeal and that doesn't mean you can suggest massive deletions based on a personal prejudice doktorb _words^deeds 23:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Right all I totally don't get it. The Dakar Rally is weak and lame. No one watches it, no one cares, so off of ITN/R with it! But only it! Because there can be no comparison with similarly uninteresting items. Banish it at once, and make room for the national football championship of Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Portugal and even Australia! (I think I understand now, thanks to all for your help). --IP98 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That really isn't being helpful. I'm genuinely trying to help here, as you can see from other nominations I've made. If you're stuck for anything to contribute other than sarcasm or insults, then I can only assume you have nothing to contribute. Look, I know it's Wikipedia, and that more generally we're arguing on the Internet which is it's own special creation, but to come back with that kind of response to a genuine and constructive post from Kevin and me just seems low, cheap and childish. doktorb _words^deeds 05:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support It may be top tier only in January (because it is the motorsport off season as everybody is developing cars for the forthcoming season) but is it on TV a lot, no (and understandably as highlights); is it backpage news (in comparison to F1, MotoGP, and WSB), no; do you hear the average Joe Public talk about it comparison to say F1/MotoGP/WRC, no. The only kind of people who talk about it are enthusiasts, why, I when I used to watch it on Eurosport, the only people I can talk to about it are people who have real interests in it and held subscription to cable TV channel. Donnie Park (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

With 7 billion people in the world, hundreds of TV distributors, millions of websites and news papers, could you please provide more concrete evidence than your happenstance interactions with "average Joe Public" or what you may have seen on TV? --IP98 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That user can't provide evidence of something not being popular, since a negative cannot be proven; they can only give their opinion based on their personal experience. The question is, can you demonstrate that this niche event is popular(even if only regionally or nationally) and widely covered? I believe we don't have the wife carrying championships in ITN/R, for example, because it is a niche event that is not widely popular. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Looked at front of the New York Times sports section, nothing in its front page: Lance Armstrong-Oprah interview; NHL, NFL playoffs, Australian Open. There is that even but only written in 5 lines. Looked at Sunday Times: nothing in its front page, just the Premier League, Australian Open, Heineken Cup. ESPN headlines: NFL playoffs, Australian Open, NBA. There is that rally but it is next to soccer, above them is college football. Daily Mail, theres one because of the magic word "Kate and Willy of Cambridge", obviously because of them pair, newsworthy material, not helped that it is at the bottom of the page as "Other News" - go to show how unless it is the motoring press, how news editors treat the event. Going back to headlines, the usual UK lot, Armstrong, Australian Open, football, football and football and of course F1 because McLaren made a minor cock up. This tells you how much news editors think the general public give a damn about the rally. I challenge you to go ask the general public and hold a conversation with them about this year's rally yourself, trust me, I tried to hold conversations with them before and do they give a damn? Donnie Park (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's on NBC sports right now, comcast channel 37 in south florida. I'm an average Joe, and I'm watchin it on TV! (well I was, my wife immediately objected). --IP98 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about American TV network, so you mean midnight, the graveyard shift hour, when a smaller percentage of people watch TV. According to my TV channel app, IIRC, it was shown on TVB Pearl at 1am when people are in bed, goes to prove though they know the name, the public's attitude to the event. Donnie Park (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't know whether anyone else has noticed, but recently the benchmark for posting to ITN has been creeping upward, and its not healthy. Our top story at the moment is four days old (bear in mind that our target is to post something every 12 hours), and that's getting pretty normal. It hardly seems worth nominating anything at the moment, because if it's not something that someone else will inevitably nominate if you don't, then it stands no chance of getting consensus. In that context, an perfectly postable ITNR story may be the only realistic chance of getting something posted until...who knows when? so I don't see what the benefit of removing it would be. Formerip (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So because January 2013 is a slow news month (or more to the point, items have not been convincingly presented at ITN/C), we are to oblige ourselves to posting this event evey year for the foreseeable future? Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not as if that's the only reason, but yes, provided it is updated. Formerip (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep while somewhat a tangential argument, it's staggering to me that we're happy for an obscure poetry award (Struga Poetry Evenings) to remain at ITN/R while the legendary Dakar Rally winner (for a few days every year at ITN) is considered no longer notable. Again, no definitive indication of notability but Dakar rally gets over 30 million Google hits, the Struga poetry evenings gets fewer than 100k. I'm not sure I understand if there's even a rationale for removal of the rally from ITN beyond not liking it. It's a multinational event which draws competitors from around the globe to an endurance event which is pretty challenging and, many years, death-defying. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to retain. Inclusion at ITN/R is the declaration that an event is so important that we can assume that importance need not be discussed year by year, but that so long as the article is sufficiently updated, then it is to be posted. Given that support for the importance of the 2013 rally is clearly lacking at ITN/C, why on earth would we assume in advance that the 2014/15/16 etc rallies will be so self evidently important that it need not even be discussed. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I warned that the argument was borderline tangential, but it goes to prove a principle. Just because one or two of us may not think a certain subject is notable worldwide, it doesn't mean that it isn't. Of course, your assertion that an ITN/R "need not even be discussed" is false, we have to ensure the updates are made correctly and that the article is of sufficient quality, regardless of whether it's a recurring ITNer or not. Providing a quality update is made, there's no good reason not to feature this historical race every year. Just because this year's discussion may not support it, who can say who would be delighted to see it in years to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My comment about not needing to be discussed was in the context of importance "so self evidently important that it [the importance] need not even be discussed". I repeat (and slightly rephrase and re-emphasise) the question that you evaded: Given that support for the importance of the 2013 rally is clearly lacking at ITN/C, why on earth would we assume in advance that the 2014/15/16 etc rallies will be so self evidently important that the importance need not even be discussed? Of course it could be proposed in future years, but if consensus over importance is not clear in 2013 (or any other year), then consensus over importance in any other year cannot be treated as a foregone conclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will consider that every time an ITN/R gets a whiff of opposition, we'll delist it from ITN/R. In that case, what is the point of ITN/R? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, to list items which are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. But if serious doubt is cast on that assumption, inclusion at ITN/R is invalid. The only items that should be here are those for which very little, or no, serious opposition on importance grounds could be envisaged, and if such weak opposition is envisaged, the items can just as easily be allowed to go through on a snow vote. Kevin McE (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep- Not to get into OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but compared to some other events on ITN/R, which I am using not as comparison but as a notability threshold, this deserves to be on that list. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe that current discussion at ITN/C demonstrates that this reaches a "notability threshold"? Do you believe that the prominence being given to coverage of the event in the mainstream media reflects that this has reached a "notability threshold"? Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, I say if we are fored to keep this, give ITN/R a major overhaul as many world headline articles have been overlooked in favour of some that is not seriously newsworthy material and some of those listed on ITN/R are making a mockery of ITN. Donnie Park (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• My feeling comes down to this--I have no problem with the Dakar rally being featured on ITN if there is quality content with it. Not sure what !vote that should be though.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A little further thought. While I stand by my comment that this event is mainly of interest to a small number of enthusiasts, which is a subjective statement difficult to prove but several editors agree, I do believe that like the Iditarod it is a well-known race even if people don't follow it closely. It's very well established. It's features parts of the world which don't normally get on ITN. So I don't know, I think I"m neutral for now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment- To anybody who think the Dakar Rally deserve to be in ITN/R because it is legendary and top tier, then what about these major and some, longer established races: Daytona 500, the other two endurance racing triple crowns (Sebring and Daytona), the Bathurst 1000, the endurance motorcycling majors (Le Mans, Bol d'Or and Suzuka 8 Hours), are we going to say these should be listed in ITN/R as well. You can keep this in ITN/R but if another nomination appears again each year, I'll vehemently oppose each nomination with the same comment as i had done in the last two editions. Donnie Park (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • While your impending "vehement oppose" is all very interesting and somewhat sinister, and in all practical terms pointless, why not just deal with the article in question. Or better still, make a case for those articles you've noted. ITN is heading towards self-destruct. It would be better for Wikipedia if we could agree that a few items of a similar subject could stay at ITN/R. Let's not forget, ITN has become stale as month-old bread lately, the voting process has become divisive and unconstructive, if we could find some basic "elements" of ITN once again, including mass-interest items like this or the Daytona 500, or any other such article, let's get on with it, nominate it for ITN/R and move on. P.S. I didn't mention it, but others should, you do know that other stuff exists don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Can I point out that the nomination for last year's Daytona 500 was opposed and thus never made it to ITN and from what I think, Americans treat that and the Indy 500 like Australians treat the Bathurst 1000 and the French to Le Mans, only two of those are in ITN/R, hence my point. Donnie Park (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, of course you can point that out. That's your prerogative. Having said that, just because items you like didn't make it to ITN, that's no reason to object to other similar items. Why not try something crazy, like nominating one of this here, although I don't fancy your chances given the attitudes of a lot of the people at ITN/C, let alone here. Now Kevin McE has posited that an ITN/R which has been opposed should be dropped from ITN/R. In which case, there seems no point whatsoever in ITN/R if each and every year, an ITN/R item has to be fought for to be included on the main page. My suggestion right now? Delete ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

seconded. Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

thirded.... oops, can't vote for myself.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

fourthed (if it is going to turn discussions into another episode of The Jeremy Kyle Show ;)) Donnie Park (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting rid of ITN/R sounds a lot like an idea I suggested some time ago to put each and every ITN/R member up for a "confirmation hearing", just the other way round. I don't believe it would be constructive to vote the whole thing out in one go. It would be helpful to be far more tough on those entries which form it - for example, I note that my nomination at the top of this article earlier today has been archived without an admin's decision on it. We can't allow this to happen every time. We need to make these decisions quickly and decisively. There's very good reasons to have ITN/R, but it's broken, and I suspect it'll collapse around us if we don't do something doktorb _words^deeds 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think being tougher isn't a bad idea, but getting rid of ITNR outright would be like cutting our hand off to get rid of a hangnail. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you (or anyone) be kind enough to explain the advantage of ITN/R when each and every entry has to go through exactly the same scrutiny before being posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• My impression (not just from this discussion) is that there is significant support for wiping the slate clean at ITN/R – not getting rid of it – but blanking the page, and re-adding things one-by-one, discussing them where there is doubt. Unless there is some sort of indication that I have misjudged the mood, I just might go ahead and do it at the weekend. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 20:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

While I would be reasonably happy to see that happen, and would have strong opinions about what criteria should be applied in a re-population exercise (though happier still simply to see it discontinued), I suspect that it would not be considered acceptable unless the proposal were much better publicised than a note deep into a discussion with no notification elsewhere, and no header drawing attention to it. (I, User:Kevin McE, posted this at 20:54, January 22, 2013‎ )

• Weak oppose as per my comment on the ITN/C nomination, but the critical part for these type of items is the article prose update. Spencer^T♦C 23:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Popular sport in many countries. NickSt (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Popular in name/brand (like BTCC to non-Europeans), popular to people with cable TV access or can manage to stay up for late night TV and popular because there are a tiny other motorsport activities in January and yeah, because nobody is going to post other motorsport events in ITN in January. I suggest you to go to the person on the street and ask them who won and can they be bothered to come up with the answer in the same way some can say to the FIFA World Cup/Superbowl/F1 World Championship/MotoGP/UEFA Champions League, which is what my oppose nomination is based on. Donnie Park (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I'm getting off the fence and voting to support keeping this--bearing it mind that as always it should only be posted if there is a quality update. It's a fairly established event and a unique event at that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove All Ireland Senior Football Championship

Continued from Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_8#Remove_All-Ireland_Senior_Football_Championship, archived without an admin's decision doktorb _words^deeds 12:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a discussion that led to its addition to the list? Has it been archived? I wanna see how that went... –HTD 13:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Highly unlikely that there was a discussion, seems that many things were inserted there without much say so doktorb _words^deeds 13:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a search function above in the talk archive box, you know. It was proposed in talk in November 2008, no further comment was made, it was added to the list several months later by the proposer. But that was about typical: more discussion than the Dakar Rally (see above) had. Kevin McE (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So I was right, there was not much say so? doktorb _words^deeds 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal Too much of a minority sport that is little know outside the country. To sum it all up, as minority as Quidditch. Donnie Park (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Remove Based on what I can see, this sport has little or no effect outside of Ireland. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove Handball

In connection to the current ITN/C nomination of World Men's Handball Championships for the front page, I'm suggesting today that the event is removed. It's clear from even the most cursory Internet search that this event is so minor that its leg-up to the front page via ITN/R seems unfathomable and unfair. There is no overwhelming reason why this event is awarded special interest through ITN/R, essentially a free pass to the front page.

I propose World Men's Handball Championships is removed from ITN/R. This would result in subsequent nominations having to go through standard discussion. doktorb _words^deeds 18:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal - see my comments under the current ITN/C nomination. I'd of course be in favour of keeping it on ITN/R because, barring anything exceptional happening in 2013, 2014 etc. my opinion on notability will be exactly the same (i.e. the purpose of ITN/R, to save repetitious discussion of recurring events). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Clear and strikingly obvious remove - not covered by any major English news outlets at all. No need to push the "diversity" button when no-one who reads this particular Wikipedia has any real interest in this. Leave it to the Polish or Spanish or Serbian or Croatian Wikipedias to cover this on their In The News section. Alternatively, as suggested above, remove ITN/R entirely and judge every article on its own merit, in which case this would fail hands down. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep We cannot say that a sport is out of scope or not important worldwide if it's simply not attractive in countries with a major concentration of English-speaking population. Handball is an Olympic sport with a long history and the IHF as its administrative body counts 163 members, which is much more than in many other sports. In addition, the comments referring to it as something with no penetration through the media are false.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Prove it then. Prove the "penetration" to the major English-speaking news outlets. This is English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You can find several examples of English-speaking news articles attached to the current ITN/C nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal I am not seeing that this tournament is covered in any real depth in English language news sources, however would not want it's removal to be a bar on future stand alone nomination. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 22:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep The 2009 final had an average TV audience of 17 million and a total audience of 32 million. To put that in context in terms of other 2009 events, it ranks higher than Game 7 of the Stanley Cup, the final of the ICC Twenty20 and the final of the Indian Premier League - all of which are, rightly, ITN/R events: http://www.initiative.com/sites/default/files/ViewerTrack_2010.pdf Neljack (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  Heh. The much maligned college football BCS championship had 26.8 million viewers, putting it in between #6 and #7, and we're giving free passes to a tournament ranked nos, 12, 14 and 18. –HTD 12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with viewership, the issue is coverage in English-speaking news sources and the source you give shows that the top three markets are not English speaking. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • I don't see why non-English news sources should be disregarded. Neljack (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In case it had escaped your notice this is "In the News" on the English language Wikipedia so while inclusion in the pedia of an article rightly does not need English language sources, the inclusion in a section detailing what is in the news needs evidence that the subject is in English news sources. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Talk:Main_Page#How_important and countless other discussions on WT:ITN, ITN is a bit misnamed, as the purpose of ITN is to "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." (WP:ITN). Nowhere does it says that articles must be covered by English news media, nor that "wide interest" is limited to Anglophones. Spencer^T♦C 23:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. We are building an international encyclopedia, and there's no reason we should limit articles that have less English coverage. In fact, that's a clear example of systemic bias. If there weren't any news sources covering this in any language, I would support removal, but the existence of large media organizations (not just niche ones) covering this supports my opinion for inclusion. Spencer^T♦C 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Remove (strongy-ongy-ding-dang-dongy remove) The sport is of low notability, and simply doesn't deserve a free pass. It can always be nominated by the normal route. If it is and is notable it'll be posted. 23:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)~
  • The above comment was added by User:Medeis. Spencer^T♦C 23:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a large sport in many countries and only has this one entry every two years. From Team handball: "By July 2009, the IHF listed 166 member federations - approximately 795,000 teams and 19 million players." PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Remove, not because it is unimportant, but because it is obvious that consensus cannot be taken for granted. ITN/R inclusion is predicated upon the assumption that consensus for importance is so obvious that it need not be discussed; this is clearly not the case. Kevin McE (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Assuming you're right, it means that ITN/R should list only a dozen of items or even less. We don't have any specific criteria on the number of items that should be listed and it doesn't strike the process to nominate new one for inclusion or another one for removal. However, the method to discuss each item as a separate case with no reference to the ITN/R is regularly useful.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you doubt that I am right, please describe what you think is the essence of ITN/R listing. If you concede that I am right, you will probably agree with me that the few items that genuinely deserve listing would sail through on a snow nomination, and that ITN/R is redundant. Kevin McE (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Remove Not a very popular sport anywhere on Earth. What I could piece together, it seems that the sport enjoys the greatest relative popularity in Denmark, and even there it is only the fourth most popular sport (by sport club membership). I do not agree with the Anglophone argument, however. Undoubtedly, the English Wikipedia has a very international readership. It's just that handball is really not that popular anywhere. This is why we don't include chessboxing, even if it has officially sanctioned world championships (as quite an extreme example.) --hydrox (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The rationale of ITNR is that there is already a strong consensus for these items. With a nomination to remove, unless there actually is such a consensus, the default position has to be to remove them. At this point there is no consensus to keep. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per the reasoning given by others above. 331dot (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Would have had issue with this if not for the viewership as mentioned above. Keep. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep We need a wider variety of items on ITN and more updates. --Jayron32 04:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What does that have to do with assuming that this event will be assumed to meet the importance criterion every year for the foreseeable future? Kevin McE (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an objective measure for your illusory "importance" criteria? --Jayron32 06:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus. If you cannot discuss without rude sarcasm, please don't discuss. Kevin McE (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was asking you a direct question that I wanted to hear your answer to. I find the concept of "importance" to be a highly personal one, and it isn't self-evident that one person's sense of what is important enough has any universal definition. I wanted to know what your standard was, so I asked you. If your standard is consensus, then it's far to early in this current discussion to declare it one way or the other. As far as a direct response to your question, since your standard is consensus, my contribution to that consensus is to state that this is important enough. Your question is thus circular, as if the only judgement of importance is consensus, then my vote is sufficient. If you have some other standard besides mere consensus, that's fine, but if not then I don't see why my vote needs to be questioned. If so, I'd like to know what it is so I can assess if this topic meets it. --Jayron32 07:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you describe the terms of my argument as illusory, and place it in inverted commas, you should not be surprised that your response is considered rude.

At ITN/C, importance can be judged by consensus. Here, we are making a judgement not merely on whether we individually consider an item to be important enough to post, but whether we believe that consensus as to importance is secure enough to be able to be taken for granted. The very divided response to the proposal that can currently be seen at ITN/C makes me confident that such a belief is ill-founded. That does not mean that it could or should not be proposed any time it is held, and it might indeed add to the variety of items at ITN on any given day. Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Bandwagonning the above reasoning. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep- As the only entry for a very popular sport, I think we can handle posting this once every two years. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Define "popular" doktorb _words^deeds 08:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Aside from what others mention above, it's popular enough to be in the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • So is modern pentathlon and there is a proposal to remove it from the 2020 Olympics. Donnie Park (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • That's basically because it used to be popular enough for the Olympics, but now it's not. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
          • We're not talking about modern pentathlon, and its falling popularity is precisely why they are considering removing it. The same is not currently true for handball. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Popular sport in many countries. WCh is the only ITNR item for it. NickSt (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The arguments to remove this have no encyclopedic basis. People think handball is on this list because of 'diversity', really? Handball, as minor a sport as it actually is, makes it into the news and with some regularity (hence being on the ITN/R list). Nothing about this is wrong or unencyclopedic, so there's nothing to change. Further, I'd like to challenge the original intention of this nomination, which was to remove this item from the ITN section of the front page. What's the purpose of our internet encyclopedia if not to inform readers of events which are less popular, and are thus something that readers might not yet know? Thanks, 128.214.198.120 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• ^^^This^^^ --Jayron32 13:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a bi-annual event, so that means one handball entry every two years, which seems just right for Handball. It's fairly popular, not very popular. In many continental European countries, it ranks as the second, third or fourth most popular team sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep when it has 0.5 items per year and golf has over 4. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal As the same above. Regardless if it is a Olympic sport, never seen any news coverage of it. More like a minority sport that, god knows how many people care about and so what if it is a bi-annual event, it doesn't make it that important. Also, where is the source to prove that it is the "ranks as the second, third or fourth most popular team sport, in many continental European countries?" Donnie Park (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Handball is the most popular sport for women in Europe, and the second most popular for men": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2085128/London-2012-Olympics-British-Handball-campaign-Olympic-venues-Copper-Box-change.html. "Europe's second most popular team sport, handball...": http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/06/handball-olympics-2012-get-involved. Also, the fact you've never seen coverage of it doesn't mean there's a lack of coverage, just that there isn't where you live because it isn't very popular there. Similarly, there isn't much coverage of American football, baseball, Aussie Rules or Gaelic football where I live. Neljack (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • For a second-most popular men's sport in Europe (surpassing the likes of rugby, basketball, ice hockey and volleyball), you'd have to ask why handball played at the smallest arena (Basketball Arena (London): 12,000 capacity) in the Olympics at a European city vs. basketball (The O2 Arena: 20,000 capacity) and volleyball (Earls Court Exhibition Centre: 19,000 capacity). In fact, it seems that the basketball's group stages had as much interest as handball's medal rounds since they were played at the same arena. I'm not opposing, and in fact supporting this nomination as it seems that the page views are large enough (I think it's even bigger than Northern hemispheric rugby but smaller than basketball's world championship that was heavily opposed 3 years ago), but we have to be more picky with claims such as "second most popular sport for men in Europe". This is once in two years anyway. –HTD 12:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Because not every country in Europe has the same culture. Kevin McE (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is true, but the Brits don't care (not as much) about basketball anyway, and Europeans would likely flock to watch a team that is playing the continent's 2nd most popular sport at a European city. –HTD 13:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no way that handball can fairly be described as Europe's second most popular sport, unless you are going by very particular criteria. That would make it more popular than tennis, golf, rugby, swimming, Formula 1, basketball, hockey and cycling. We don't even need sources to know that this is not the case. Formerip (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of those you listed above are individual sports. The source given was about team sports. I don't see why we wouldn't need a source to prove that a sourced claim is not true. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin request

Could a non-involved admin be made aware of the older requests on this page, as all have gone through enough discussion for a decision to me made? doktorb _words^deeds 23:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to remove items from the list

^^ –HTD 03:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If we look at the current snapshot of consensus above, I think that there is indeed a consensus, at least a rough one, to keep both the Dakar Rally and the Men's World Handball championship. (!vote counts, FWIW, are 12-5 to keep Handball and 7-3 to keep the Rally). So in those cases I don't think there's any evidence of a problem--those events are staying on because there's a consensus to keep them, not because they were added to ITNR years ago by a couple of editors and they're hanging on because no one can muster a consensus to remove them. The Gaelic Football championship is a little more problematic, as there doesn't seem to be much comment on whether to keep or remove it, which supports the idea that it's very hard to remove events. That said, I think there was a proposal last year or so on the removal of the GAA championship event and there was a consensus to keep it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the GAA event had no consensus for removal, which defaults to keep. –HTD 04:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I really believe that consensus here means something very different from its meaning elsewhere. The self proclaimed purpose of ITN/R is to list items which are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. In other words, not merely that it is important, but that it is so important that that is considered beyond debate each time it recurs. If the experience at ITN/C is that it is actively and meaningfully debated, and sometimes rejected despite the alleged guaranteed pass of ITN/R, then that assumption is demonstrably ill-founded.

We should not here be !voting about whether something is important, but about whether we believe that the importance is perceived by the community as so self evident that it is not worth putting up for discussion.

I do not see that as the basis of many of the !votes that you have counted. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, with respect (and I really do have a lot of respect for your thoughtful contributions), I have problems with what you say. It seems to me to be inconsistent with the actual practice of ITN/R up till now. As far as I can see, discussions on ITN/R have been about whether an event is sufficiently important and newsworthy to always be posted, whatever might happen in the event in a particular year; they haven't been about whether the community perceives it to be self-evident that it is sufficiently important. If we did follow your practice we would have much shorter list: I would say that quite probably the majority of the sporting competitions on the list would be too controversial to qualify under your criterion. Saying ITN/R lists items that "are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur" doesn't seem to me to say anything about self-evidence; it just says that the event is important enough to be listed each time, regardless of what happens that particular year (as opposed to events which would only be listed if something particularly newsworthy happened). I any case, surely the best way to assess the level of consensus is have editors say whether they support or oppose its inclusion, rather than having say whether they think the community regards its importance as self-evident - something that is much harder for them to assess. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If we accept items for ITN/R on the basis of a marginal !vote (at best, most are here simply on the basis of suggestion at time of founding of the list) on the basis of whether it is important, then there cannot be confidence that a similar discussion in another year, with wider participation, will give the same result. This is seen frequently. Putting something on ITN/R should not be based on "I think this is important", it should be based on "I believe that the community will agree on the importance of this". People have not !voted on that basis, thus the decision of ITN/R is unreliable, thus the principle that importance can be taken as predetermined is ill founded. Consensus against posting on grounds of insufficient importance at ITN/C is being overruled by inferior debate at ITN/R, or the assumption of importance implied by ITN/R listing is disproven at ITN/C: either is a ridiculous state of affairs. Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could we add some sort of "on probation" list? Such that if more than a handful of editors query an item's place (critical amount to be judged by an wise admin considering the size of the ITN/C community), at the next time it occurs it gets a standard ITN/C run and we see how that goes? If there is consensus to reject, then bye-bye ITN/R status. If there's consensus to post then its full ITN/R listing is restored and protected from further probation for at least one recurrence. I think this is a way to maintain ITN/R's time-saving role whilst addressing Howard's and others' concerns. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think I proposed something like this before, but this can be abused... like what will most likely happen this Sunday/Monday. –HTD 04:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Add the other Grand Tours

The Grand Tours are the most important cycling events other than the Olympics. They even have special status when it comes to the UCI World Tour. I propose adding the Giro d'Italia and the Vuelta a España to complement the Tour de France. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a reason UCI "ranks" Tour de France higher, and rightly so... –HTD 13:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I am a cycling fan, and would be delighted to see the other tours posted at least from time to time. I would also like to see more coverage of one day classics, and have more than once proposed the World Road Race Championships at ITN/C (got posted only when won by an Anglophone, surprise surprise). However, I must vote according to the principle I set out above: not be based on "I think this is important", but on "I believe that the community will agree on the importance of this" and so, regretfully, I oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'm generally in favour of having a faster turnover of ITN in general. These seem like good candidates, though they would occur during the sport-heavy time of the year. Can we see how the Giro d'Italia does in an ITN/C candidacy before considering ITN/R? Was it nominated in 2012? LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I believe it was posted. Of course, that doesn't automatically make it suitable for ITNR, and I think there were some circumstances which, it was claimed, made last year's win particularly noteworthy. Formerip (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It was posted, but as with the 2011 WC, on the basis of anglophone victory. The Giro was nominated, but not posted, in 2011 and 2009. Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The 2012 Giro was historic from a Canadian perspective. Resolute 20:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Kevin's reluctant oppose; there might be potential for these to be recurring in the future, but there should be a consistent history of community support before that happens. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, in accord with KevinMcE and 331dot. I'll be supporting good nominations for these at ITN when they appear, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Add promotion of Yokozuna

In September of last year, to unanimous support we posted the promotion of Harumafuji Kōhei to the rank of Yokozuna, the highest rank in sumo.

Proposal

To list promotion to Yokozuna as an ITN/R item.

Rationale

• There are currently no ITN/R items for sumo, which is a major sport in East Asia.
• This is the highest accolade in the sport.
• There was clear consensus to post the last occurrence of this event (see above), and there is no particular reason why the next Yokozuna promotion will be a significantly different type of event.
• The event occurs fairly rarely, approximately once every two years (see List of Yokozuna).

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree but simultaneously question the point of this since we know it's rare, we know we have to wait for a suitably decent update to the article, and we still have to "vote" in favour of ITN/R candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the main benefit of having it on ITN/R would be that people may be more likely to be looking out for it, so that the next one doesn't pass us by! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough to keep something on the radar like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, in absolute agreement with LukeSurl's initial proposal and his reply to The Rambling Man above. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support This event is rare and is extremely important for sumo. I am surprised we do not have an ITN/R item for sumo already, considering it is the national sport of one of the world's most important countries. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Sensible proposal, not much more to add. The only real alternative would be to list each year's results, but I think reaching the rank of Yokozuna is a better option, and will have better article/update. Modest Genius ^talk 23:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Sensible proposal, and will add some regional variety. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

discussion or not?

Was there a discussion when the association football cup item disputed here was added to ITNR? Shouldn't there be a permalink on ITNR to all the individual discussions backing up these additions? If we can't provide such links all such additions should be removed when challenged, and new discussions held to reinstate them. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If it hasn't been challenged in five years, it would seem to have been accepted by default. It certainly shouldn't be removed while a relevant item is under discussion. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but "by default" is not a link, nor is it consensus. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If no one was moved enough in five years to call for it to be removed, there would seem to be a consensus to (at a minimum) not remove it, if not specifically keep it. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus should be based on weight of reasoning: no reasoning, no consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it was there for five years shouldn't just be ignored. If people tacitly accepted it for that long that should be taken into consideration. I also find it dubious that it is just stripped out in the middle of a discussion about the very issue being removed from ITNC. You've had five years to strip it out, it seems odd to do it now. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 331. Removing it during a current ITN/C discussion doesn't seem helpful really. If there are items people dispute the place on ITN/R, the time when then actually are occurring is the absolute worst time to mount a removal campaign, massively disruptive and hugely discouraging to editors trying to improve the article to reflect the current event. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I don't agree with that Luke, it does not matter when an item is challenged, if, as in this case, it appears to have been added without any discussion then it should be removed when that comes to light and it is challenged and discussion can then be had as to re-adding it. The burden of proof is on thoes wishing to retain an item that consesns exited for it's inclusion in the first place. If we were to follow your reasoning (and not wishing to have a case of WP:BEANS) someone could add for example the Japanese hole digging competition to the list promply add a nomination and claim ITN/R and use this discussison as a precedent for non-removal. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 22:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The equivalent there is that if you changed ITN/R just before this Digging Championship final. This discussion-free decision, just like the removal now, would be seen and reverted. While whatever discussion or diktat lead to the addition of the Cup of Nations in 2008 is probably lost to time, the fact that it hasn't been removed in the last 5 years shows it was generally accepted. I'd ask that editors have a look through the ITN/R list now, as one is always able to, and challenge anything now, rather than wait till it comes up in ITN/C where a challenge would cause the most disruption. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It was removed during the ITN/C debate partly because the main defender of ITN/R status as placing it as above debate suggested it, and partly because of the refusal of contributors there to provide any meaningful reasoning as to the importance of the event, when consensus as to this has never been established by discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

African Cup of Nations

Proposal : That the African Cup of Nations be added to the list of soccer events. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. Formerip (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Appalling contempt for consensus building. Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are seeking to undo a tacit consensus and have tried to do so unilaterally, instead of building a consensus for your view. Who should have contempt for who? (which, I don't. Just asking the question). 331dot (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose High likelihood that each edition will only include very few of the top 20 or 30 ranked teams in the world, and very likely none of the top ten, so cannot be confidently assumed to represent the sport at a particularly high level. If level of competition in some years is particularly high, it could be posted via ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This proposal should be to remove it, not to add it. It was accepted for five years; no one challenged it in that time and removing it in the middle of a discussion is improper. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep on the list as long as other continental championships are there. They should all be removed or kept; we shouldn't judge some more important that others if it is the same level of play (continental). 331dot (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, but seriously. ITN/R should exist to allow relaxed, community-consensus decisions to be made ahead of events, avoiding the rush when they actually occur. Unfortunately, on this occasion it's worked in reverse, making what should have been a straightforward affair complicated and busy.

Now on ITN/C, playing the "it's on ITN/R so there" card probably wasn't the most cohesive move, and managed to fold in procedural arguments within a "normal" ITN/C discussion. Note that some editors have also written some prose on why the Cup of Nations is noticeable. After this story is posted we have two years till the next tournament. I suggest we take 24 hours to clear our heads, then take however long we need to to form consensus as to whether the Cup of Nations is an ITN/R item or not. OK? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur. But the proper procedure is that you get one shot at a bold edit, which is way past spent. The proposal should be for the removal of the item, or it is meaningless. Formerip (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to raise BRD (which has no statute of limitations), whoever added it in 2008 was bold, and I reverted it. So noone else should reinstate the bold change without establishing consensus here first. Kevin McE (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support retention. This was a pretty ham-fisted way to go about things, but if support for a long-standing addition is suddenly needed, here's mine. This is behind only the FIFA World Cup in international association football, on a level footing with the Euro, Gold Cup and Copa América, etc. Ruling out one is frankly stupid, and since there seems no proposal here to remove the others I can't see any good-faith merit in the removal whatsoever. GRAPPLE X 23:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You have evidently decided to draw a line below which the Asian and Oceanian championships fall, so you evidently accept that there is a cut off point of quality below which continental championships do not deserve a free pass. There may have been, and may in the future be, years in which a number of competitors in the ACN (or the Gold Cup, currently highest 4 CONCACAF teams are ranked 15, 28, 38 and 46 in the world) are genuinely world class, and the case can be made for it being a high standard of competition. But we cannot assume that such a case can be made every time the events occur, so your position seems inconsistent. Kevin McE (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. You seem not to understand the term "etc". I'll wait while you go catch up on that. GRAPPLE X 23:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But not all the evnts that you claim to be covered by your etc are listed at ITN/R. Are you about to propose the OFC championship? If you do not, my observation as to your inconsistency stands. Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed, hadn't noticed it was the only one missing. Now if you don't have anything with more merit than "hur dur your list wasn't exhaustive" then I'm done. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Remove - It is just too much, per Kevin. His style ain't always my cuppa, but he's on the money on this. There is no consensus. Come on. Jusdafax 00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• when was it removed, and by what reasoning? Anyway I support retention. It gets widespread coverage. It's the biggest sporting event in Africa. It features globally known footballers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support retention There is nothing that says only the top level of a sport should be included. If that was the case we would only have one event for soccer: the World Cup. Similarly we would only have the Rugby World Cup for rugby, and so on. Ultimately, this is about the level of notability and interest. There is lots of interest in the African Cup of Nations, both in Africa and elsewhere. Like it or not (and I'm not a great fan), soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and so we can justify having soccer tournaments that aren't quite the highest level in here. Neljack (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• propose closing discussion. It's already on ITNR, after being removed and some reverts.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why not just have a well advertised rfc covering all sports itn/r items that have not attained consensus for addition. Anything that is closed as no consensus should be removed. Hopefully that would sort it out once and for all. AIRcorn (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We should seek consensus for removal, not for retention, as the majority of the events have been there for several years unchallenged. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But isn't ITN/r supposed to be for items that shouldn't need to go through the nominations process because there suitability is well established. If there is not consensus to have it listed here then it is not obvious that it would have consensus there. These are kind of analogous to the SNG's. AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I maintain that if such events in question have remained on ITNR for many years unchallenged, there it a tacit consensus to (at a minimum) not remove them; the burden should be on those seeking removal of long-listed events. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree; where inclusion is challenged, it is incumbent upon those who favour inclusion to defend it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

....which is done in a proper discussion initiated by those seeking removal of a long standing event. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There obviously isn't or we wouldn't be having these debates. AIRcorn (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You would be right, if the event had not been there long. The soccer tournament in dispute has been listed for five years. If no one was moved enough to seek its removal in five years, they must at least be willing to tolerate it, if not outright support it. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And this will find that out. If many more support it than oppose then it will have consensus. If it is close then it obviously does not. AIRcorn (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(@ 331 dot)Or perhaps not be aware that of its listing here, and that such would be used as a battering ram against those who would dare to question the importance of a match between two teams outside the world's top 50 at ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Then it's up to you to make people aware of that during any such discussion; you seem more than capable of doing so. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Add OFC Nations Cup

Simply put, OFC Nations Cup is as meritorious as any of the other FIFA divisional cups; the rationales given for the others applies equally to this one, whose absence is an oversight that appears to have been missed. In brief: these events are a tier below the FIFA World Cup in terms of prestige, being international tournaments in one of (if not the) largest sports in the world. One story is to be expected every second year, though it should be noted that 2006's cup was not held so it may not be a sure entry (though another monkey wrench on par with Australia's defection is unlikely). GRAPPLE X 00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Support as long as other continental tournaments are listed as it is the same level of play. Skill of the teams doesn't figure into how these tournaments are divided. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We feature sports events according to whether they represent the highest level of sport, not some token of fairness. The OFC championship will never have a comparable standard to the Euros or the Copa América. This is equivalent to saying that we have The Rugby Championship and the Six Nations Championship, so we must have the Africa Cup, the South American Rugby Championship, and the Asian Five Nations. Kevin McE (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - No, this is too much. Jusdafax 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Far from a top level sporting event that even Australia doesn't want to be a part of it. And this is from a Kiwi, who would see their team mentioned every second year. Oh wait... AIRcorn (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As a fellow New Zealander, I agree with Aircorn. New Zealand are the highest ranked team in the OFC at 91, and the confederation doesn't even have a guaranteed place in the World Cup. I think that gives a pretty good indication of its lack of strength; it's a far cry from the African Cup of Nations. And it doesn't get a lot of attention in other parts of the world, again unlike the ACN. Neljack (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Quality and international coverage is too poor. The five other federations all have at least seven teams ranked above the best OFC team. The current OFC members have only played in the World Cup once (New Zealand in 1982). PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Twice. AIRcorn (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. Twice, without advancing from the group stage or winning a match. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Point made

Proposal: add the Africa Cup, the South American Rugby Championship, and the Asian Five Nations Apparently we are not meant to pass judgement on the notability of sports on the basis of the standard at which a sport is played, but to ensure that all continents are treated equally. I had never heard of these events until I just looked them up, but obscurity and poor quality are not, it would appear, relevant. Kevin McE (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Proposal: add the Asian Australian Football Championships, the European Championships in Australian Football If we include the top event in Australia, it is apparently to be made obligatory to include the top event in other continents as well, regardless of the standard. Kevin McE (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Isn't this WP:POINT? 331dot (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Decommission ITN/R

ITN/R doesn't seem to have a purpose anymore. Establishing consensus for notability on most of these items, and honestly any item that should be on ITN/R, is very quick, with the update generally being the concern anyway. Those items that are controversially notable are still debated at ITN/C, despite the fact that they're on ITN/R. Then there are people who seem to just half-heartedly support items, supporting solely because it's listed at ITN/R and not really feeling it's that notable. This often leaves admins in the awkward position of posting items that are heavily opposed at ITN/C simply because they're at ITN/R. The number of discussions about adding or removing ITN/R items is too large, with the level of consensus here just mirroring that on ITN/C. This suggests a profound misunderstanding of how ITN/R was intended to work and, more importantly, that it is not working at all. So, let's just get rid of it and allow each nomination to be decided individually. -- tariqabjotu 03:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Though it could be argued that this will make it even harder to get blurbs posted at ITN, it is time to take a bold step and give ITN/R a rest. We can always bring it back if ITN freezes up. I was just looking at how many football items there are on ITN/R - really? Let's debate on the merits, and hopefully move forward. My thanks to Tariqabjotu for this suggestion. Jusdafax 04:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support and replace it with better guidance on ITN notability: guidelines should recommend prominence in news sources as demonstrated by which news sources cover a topic and how it is covered and in what parts of major news sources and less on what editors individual tastes and preferences are for determining notability for ITN. News coverage and article quality should be determining factors (and article quality should rule all) as to what should and shouldn't get posted. --Jayron32 05:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. While there are some valid criticisms I do feel ITNR saves us a lot of discussion. I also feel that that, by and large, the events listed have a consensus gained over time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think if we're going to consider such a serious change to ITN we should have a RfC to get the widest possible consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsemlak (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) .

I have been bold and added the RFC tag to the start of the section. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support With regret, I have come to the view that ITN/R is not fulfilling its purpose and is causing more harm than good. I really don't think it saves much in the way of discussion. As has been observed, uncontroversial items such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup will fly through anyway, and the more controversial items get their notability debated anyway on ITN/C. I do agree, however, that an RfC should probably be held before abolishing ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been bold and added the RFC tag to the start of the section. I would also support a listing on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion but will leave it up to others to so nominate. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Agree that in it's current incarnation it is not working. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Many items are here with no discussion to establish consensus, others added or retained on the basis of marginal !votes that say "I think this is important", not "I am confident that this will be considered important by the community every year for the foreseeable future". Criteria that were accepted several years ago are routinely challenged now at ITN/C. Despite admonition, items are frequently opposed at ITN/C on grounds that they are not listed at ITN/R. The only items that really ought to be here are such obvious passes on importance grounds that they will go through on snow as soon as they are sufficiently updated anyway. Tiny (or no) discussion here should not trump opposition at ITN/C, which attracts far more eyes and more turnover of editors. Kevin McE (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't think this is useful without any clearly defined criteria for what should be included. We end up with arguments along the lines of "such and such is included so this should be too", which can lead to some extreme examples. Let nominations live and die at ITN/C. If they truly belong here they should fly through anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support clearly broken as recent events have demonstrated. Allow each topic to be discussed without the spectre of someone claiming "well it's ITN/R, so there"... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That would also alleviate the election/sport concerns. Although perhaps we could establish/consensus/method for adding ALL things again.Lihaas (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support We've been heading towards this for at least a year. ITN/R was missused by certain editors to "race" for a front page nomination, often doing so at the expense of updating the article. In anycase, there's been far too much argument and far too little real discussion. So let's decommission ITN/R for good, as that should be the best foundation on which to build a new, broader system doktorb _words^deeds 10:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose until there is an actual proposal to replace or reform this. Call me a newbie still but I don't think this is so seriously broken that it needs to be scrapped ASAP. I think many of the problems can be fixed by clarifying the criteria for inclusion and subjecting listed items to a review, on a regular or requested basis(which there was nothing to stop people from doing so now or in the several years many items have been listed) 331dot (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reform, or remove items with limited consensus for addition. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new purpose: overruling local consensus

From the current version of this page: "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN" with the strong implication that consensus for this has been achieved. I have been reading WP:ITNC regularly, and this is clearly not always the case. Several of the items have been demonstrated to have been added with less discussion than a typical ITNC nomination.
I still believe, however, that WP:ITNR can serve an important purpose. ITNC can only provide a limited consensus. Furthermore, due to the nature of news, there are limited possibilities for the project to overrule a local decision to not post something. For instance, it is conceivable that the project as a whole may wish to treat all sovereign countries equally with regards to main page posting of elections, while ITNC opposes the nomination of Burkina Faso's election but accepts Montenegro's. In fact one of the stated purposes of ITNR is that it "assists editors in ensuring a reasonably balanced coverage (...) over time" (i.e. avoiding systemic bias. For this reason I propose that the list is emptied (barring items that were demonstrably widely discussed with a clear consensus), and that the purpose of the list is changed to be a list of recurring events that have been widely discussed, and the discussion achieved a consensus to always post that is larger than the consensuses regularly achieved at ITNC. (Perhaps the list should suggest standardised blurbs, to further strenghten the purpose of limiting systemic bias.) Of course, addition and removal discussions will need to be advertised widely if ITNR is to fulfill its new purpose. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)