Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.88.165.222 (talk) at 23:41, 25 March 2013 (→‎Removal proposal: Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final: replies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Isn't this WP:POINT? 331dot (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see it as reductio ad absurdum Kevin McE (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

|}

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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) .[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support listing at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion 88.88.165.222 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)\[reply]
 Done AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree that in it's current incarnation it is not working. LightGreenApple talk to me 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 wordsdeeds 10:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reform, or remove items with limited consensus for addition. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd be quite happy just to get rid of ITN/r entirely--noms that are assumed to have consensus will quickly show consensus at ITNC. That being said, wiping the slate clean and starting over per The Rambling Man below seems reasonable. But we'd have to agree on something like a two-to-one or even greater consensus per item, with actual supported arguments, not just votes counting, and the arguments would have to be archived and linked to the items approved. And we should absolutely not approve blanket categories like "sovereign elections" (apologies to Burkina Faso): with over 200 nations and some parliaments falling yearly or more often ITN would just be an election ticker. This would be a long, complicated, and probably very contentious process--and ITNC disputes would still arise. So I'd still rather just scrap the whole thing and stick with just ITNC nominations. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The elections are currently on WP:ITNR and are posted if they are updated, yet ITN is not an election ticker. In my opinion the quality of the project is improved by posting all sovereign country elections on the main page. If the consensus of the wider project approves "sovereign elections" for a renewed ITNR they should be posted until a new discussion removes them from the list. If the consensus is that elections should always go through ITNC that's fine too, but it will result in some oddities, e.g. because of higher percentage of active Wikipedia users in country A. In any case, I think a wider consensus for a consistent practise is good whether it is all countries or the 50 most populous. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'd be tempted by the idea of wiping the slate clean and then re-electing each member of ITN/R, from scratch. That would be fine. Trying to dig back in history and finding some dubious "consensus" to automatically include certain articles (like the Struga Poetry Evenings which is both an obscure award and a pathetic article) is pointless, if we want a list of shoe-ins, let's start now by getting true consensus for each article. It's radical, but we probably have no choice unless we discard ITN/R altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on the proposed new function below. In any case, as an ITNR consensus is supposed to be considered in subsequent ITNCs, I think it needs to involve more editors than the average ITNC discussion. Perhaps mandatory RFCs for inclusion and exclusion (after eliminating the current set), with a single large RFC (or a few divided by subject) for the first batch. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first two, but as they are not imminent there is no problem including them in the sports discussion for what to re-enter. The third opens a can of worms (though I propose to open in any case), and the affected countries would probably pass ITNC without problems so it should be discussed.
That is: The list should go as the "shoo-ins" are not imminent and would pass ITNC without problems if they were. I think it is better if all items on the new ITNR go through the same process. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Update 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erase the whole list, start again. That's the only way we can fairly create a new list of items that are considered ITN/R across the whole (current) community. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The reasons why ITNR was first set up still exist. It saves a lot of arguing and concentrates minds. The fact that updates are the problem shows the system is working - we don't get into long notability discussions, and editors can go straight to updating the article. There are years of useful experience and institutional memory in the current page. Yes, there are a few items that could do with being removed, and the talk page should either get some more traffic or be redirected to WT:ITN. But that doesn't mean we should scrap it. Modest Genius talk 21:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So reboot it, allowing each proposed article to be discussed rather than rely on dubious (or non-existent) historic consensus which you claim to include "years of useful experience and institutional memory" (the latter of which is probably a negative, rather than a positive).... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the proposal under discussion. This RfC is to totally scrap ITNR. Modest Genius talk 22:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of Order - This proposal is simple: to decommission the ITN/R list and not replace it. It is a support or oppose vote to scrap the list and debate each ITN nomination on its merits. A refactoring or recreation of the INT/R list will involve a massive debate that will be counter productive. Again: this !vote is about us stopping the use of INT/R. If we run into problems, we can always !vote to bring it back. Jusdafax 21:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure sure, but on a practical level, there's a compromise position which is to re-boot the list, and do it in a consensual way, rather than just for individuals to add/remove items when they see fit. You can have more than a yes/no answer, unless, of course, I missed the rules on this discussion which stated clearly it was a referendum (i.e. Boolean answer) on the existence of ITN/R, as opposed to a discussion to seek out the best solution.... (which is altogether possible). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "So, let's just get rid of it and allow each nomination to be decided individually." -per the proposal under discussion. The genius of this is the simplicity: we get rid of it and !vote directly on the merits of each ITN nomination as usual at ITN/C, but with out this ITN/R list. Jusdafax 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing other options does not remove the possibility of this outcome. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I don't see the problem with suggesting alternatives to the two extremes. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seems rather baby & bathwater to me. ITN/R seems quite useful, one as a list of things we might otherwise forget, and also to save us time discussing that we can then spend on improving articles. I've proposed a reform to ITN/R procedures below that should let the bathwater out while keeping baby safe and warm. LukeSurl t c 21:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but would support a reboot. Tariq's rationale is basically fair enough. ITNR is useless if it is constantly throwing up arguments. However, it's also useful if it increases the frequency of updates and helps to ensure balance of coverage along various dimensions. The problem is that it is built on shaky foundations, since it's contents never had a strong consensus and are at least partly random. That can potentially be fixed, so that ITNR stops being useless and carries on being useful. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- I'm not a big fan of ITN/R, but removing it gets rid of certain events that received consensus years ago, but due to the stricter standards of most editors now might not pass. I think we should take into account past consensus and not have to reanalyze an event each time, when most discussion will just be general to the event, and therefore repetitive each year. The purpose of ITN/R is to prevent this, and no matter its flaws, it can still serve this purpose. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Item-by-item discussion is valuable, and ITN/R squelches most possibilities of having this. In addition, the quality of the update that items have is frequently ignored because, having notability established at ITN/R seems sufficient for posting, and there have been several instances in which ITN/R items have gone up before they are ready. Second choice is a major overhaul of items that removes all but the most obvious, notable, and well-publicized events (which could in itself lead to more drama) and use ITN/R for that limited segment of events. SpencerT♦C 07:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in principle, having a list of predetermined items makes sense as a way to expedite posting for obvious events (of course people always find a way to filibuster Super Bowls for some reason). However, it needs to be easier to remove items from ITNR without having to jump through hoops to do so. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Many good arguments above. ITN needs to have a good look at itself, including its name, its purpose, its processes aand quality control issues. This change will barely begin to address those wholesale issues, but it's a start. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose scrapping, "the update generally being the concern anyway". ... (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, because I think ITNR should continue to exist in some form. I would prefer that we deleted it, agreed the "standards" for adding something to the list, and then recreate a blank page.

    In practise that discussion would have a pretty narrow scope. Obviously any addition would require consensus, and I presume that anything on the new ITNR would be considered postable subject to quality. So essentially we would be discussing the level of discretion admins have to give less weight to overtly nationalistic arguments, when determining whether or not there is consensus for a given item. —WFC— FL wishlist 13:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. At least with the recurring events on ITNR, a consensus has been established that these events are worthy of inclusion, and the only dispute at ITNC is, generally, whether the article has been improved sufficiently to post the news report to ITN. We have enough trouble getting the Super Bowl result posted every year -- imagine how things would be if the crowd of people who are negative toward American football could take the opportunity to challenge whether the event is notable at all. There should be a procedure for adding or removing events from ITNR, but the list of eligible recurring events in general should be maintained. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the events at ITN/R carry no demonstrable consensus, they were added without discussion. The issue with the SuperBowl was entirely due to doubts about sufficient updates. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there was "no demonstrable consensus", then it should be easy to gain consensus for removing such events from ITNR. My issue was when you unilaterally removed an event that had been unchallenged in five years. I wouldn't have cared if it had been added in the last week or even in the last year, but being on the list for five years unchallenged counts for something. It doesn't even really matter now, since this will either go away or be restarted with a fresh list. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of my edit a week ago is totally irrelevant here. Metropolitan90 made a !vote supported by an observation that is demonstrably untrue, I pointed that out. Kevin McE (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An implied consensus to not remove items that, even if added during the creation of ITNR without specific discussion, have survived unchallenged for years is not "totally irrelevant" nor "demonstrably untrue". Metropolitan90 is entitled to their beliefs, just as you are yours and me mine. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has commenting on the reasoning behind a !vote been denying that someone is entitled to his/her beliefs? I thought it was of the essence of debate and discussion.
The matter I dismissed as "totally irrelevant" had nothing to do with M90's opinion: it was to do with your dragging an old specific deletion issue into a discussion of what is true of a large number of items currently listed here.
It is demonstrably untrue that any clear consensus has developed around some of the items listed here. Ignorance is not consent. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed that out to show that what you claim isn't "demonstrably untrue", it's a matter of opinion. You say "ignorance is not consent"; I say that if no one was moved enough to remove the items from the list for lack of consensus in five years, they must support them by not opposing them. It's a simple matter to say "this didn't get consensus and should be removed" and for someone else to agree or disagree, about a long-standing item. It's not a matter of ignorance, it's a matter of a lack of action. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I initially pointed out to Met90 is that there was no demonstrable consensus on some items. I really don't see how that can be honestly challenged, but if you wish to, demonstrate it. If nothing happens to make people aware of items being listed at ITN/R, they cannot be expected to oppose their presence there, as they remain ignorant of the fact that they are listed: ignorance is not consent. Kevin McE (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said that each and every item had a specific discussion and consensus; I have said that if the opposite is the case with certain items, it should be easy to call for their removal, which should be done by seeking consensus to remove them. It's up to ourselves to make ourselves knowledgeable. ITNR is open and in plain sight, not hidden, with a link on all ITN related pages. Items unchallenged for years is an implied consensus to keep. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That implicit consensus exists may be your opinion, it is not mine. The statement that I made in response to Met90's rationale is that not every item has a demonstrable consensus, and even if one were to accept your principle of implicit consensus, that does not refute my assertion about demonstrable consensus, nor does it make edits a week ago relevant to this thread. Really can't understand what you thought you were adding to the discussion by weighing in here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We post too few items as it is, and completely scrapping ITNR will only make that worse. I would support reforming the process, but I cannot support getting rid of it entirely. I also would not support scrapping during the process of reforming. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I feel that ITN/R has a very distinct and useful purpose, that it saves time, and it also ensures that we don't get bogged down in things that should be posted, but you have one or two people that don't like the subject and try to stall everything. As has been noted by others above, ITN already has issues on posting enough sense. Decommissioning this would just make things worse, because it would open it up to the "consensus", which at ITN means everyone disagrees and nothing gets posted. SilverserenC 00:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is going way too far. The correct solution is the reform the listing. I propose we review every item on the list, one by one, and determine a general consensus on keep/remove. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Silverseren and most others. This still has a purpose. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per many above; ITN/R is quite useful. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the argument that we post too few stories as it is. Nothing wrong with a reboot, but decommissioning should be out of the question. 174.114.112.77 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose ITN/R provides consistency, helps to fill in holes during slow news cycles, and perhaps most importantly of all avoids recurring bickering over the importance of "XYZ sporting event". I don't see ITN/R as broken enough to disband it. Totally absurd. --IP98 (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not all events get the same degree of coverage every year, and all events should therefore be nominated individually if they are deemed to be includable by an editor. Zaminamina (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support individual nomination and approval. Most of these look pretty obscure to me relative to what usually runs. Neo Poz (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've given my opinion on this before, I think. It represents long-standing consensus and rejects the !voting that seems to be taking hold at ITN. It just saves everybody from a whole lot of needless debates. If an item doesn't meet the update requirements, then it shouldn't go up. That's always been the procedure with ITN/R. Nightw 09:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why not just remove items with limited consensus for inclusion? Seems like a simpler solution. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No posts for a couple of weeks. Can we close? --LukeSurl t c 23:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
!vote count seems to be 21:13 in opposition to the decommissioning, although among the ITN regulars (who will use ITN/R) there is certainly no strong majority in favour of being dictated to by this list. The majority of votes for the retention of the list include some suggestion of a substantive review of the items listed, so this is certainly not a straightforward closure. Kevin McE (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that this discussion was about keeping or decommissioning ITNR only; since outright decommissioning isn't going to take place, any discussion which will undertake a review of the items on the list should occur in a separate discussion, to avoid confusion. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is entirely sensible to have ITN/R. Some items are recurring. ITN/R saves us from having to discuss these items every time and brings some consistency to the kinds of events we post. --RA (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

Since this is noted at CENT it is assumed that participation from user unfamiliar with the process is desired. I have been editing since 2007, and as far as I can recall had never heard of ITN/R before beginning to read this conversation, which seems to be mostly comprised of folks already very familiar with it. Any chance of getting a sort of "primer" up at the top on what ITN/R is, how it works, and so forth instead of just assuming we already know all about it? It isn't even linked in the opening statement of the RFC, so this is not very inviting to those unfamiliar with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITNR is a (somewhat to extensive) list of recurring events that are presumed to have satisfied the notability neccessary to be posted on ITN when the event occurs. The list also has (or has the potential to have) a beneficial effect on avoiding bias and improving consistency. The problem that sparked this debate is the lack of demonstrable consensus on the original inclusion of several of the items. I agree that the introduction could be clearer, but I'll leave that to those more experienced with the ITN processes. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items is a list of recurring events. The majority fit into three categories, awards, sport and government (i.e. elections and changes of heads of state). It is part of ITN's instructions that a recurring event does not need to be on ITNR to be considered as an ordinary ITN/C nomination. When an item is nominated on WP:ITN/Candidates that is on the ITN/R list the following notice appears:
    Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.
How editors regard this is not universal. WP:ITN generally posts an item once the community have decided the story is sufficiently notable, and that an article update is sufficient. The typical interpretation is that for an ITN/R item, the notability criterion can be considered 'already met'.
Items can be added or removed from the list following discussion on this talk page, however it has been noted that this is a slow and difficult process. In particular is in dispute what degree of consensus is required to remove an item, is it full consensus to remove, simple majority, or should an item need full consensus to remain on the list? It has also been noted that much of the list seems to have been written several years ago, and it is unclear as to what, if any, discussion went into these additions. An alternative school of thought is that because such items have remained on the list for so long they are effectively "grandfathered in" having achieved an implicit consensus by not being removed.
The most dispute ITN/R generates is when editors voice notability-related opposition to an ITN/R item's candidacy. This often happens for elections in small countries or sporting events for minor sports. It is disputed whether these arguments should be considered, or whether the ITN/R listing makes such protests futile.
--LukeSurl t c 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway-house: ITN/R probation

Collapsing as nominator, clearly not going anywhere and probably too complicated --LukeSurl t c 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a proposal to facilitate both adding and removing items to and from the ITN/R list, by engaging with the full ITN community, whilst leaving uncontroversial items alone.

The procedure
  1. An editor who wishes to either add or remove an item to the list writes a short reasoning here at WT:ITN/R
  2. Other editors are invited to endorse this position. If sufficient agreement occurs that demonstrates at least a substantial minority of editors endorse the addition/removal the item is given "probationary" status. This step would not require full consensus, only enough endorsements to show it is not a completely isolated view.
  3. The item is listed on ITN/R with a "probationary item" tag next to it. If the item has been nominated for removal, the tag is added to the current listing.
  4. The next time the event recurs it is treated as a typical ITN/C item. The nomination would be marked "This recurring event is being considered for listing on ITN/R. Comments regarding the general notability of the event are welcome in this assessment." Editors are encouraged to give full reasoning regarding the item's notability (no "support as per ITN/R")
  5. Should there be consensus the item is notable or not, the item's listing is decided accordingly (if no consensus them probationary status remains)
  6. Re-nominating an item that has been through probation for its last occurrence would be discouraged.

Steps 1 and 2 could be done in a big, systematic and comprehensive RfC if desired.

Advantages
  • The procedure to add an item and remove one are near-identical.
  • Retains ITN/R's useful secondary function as a "reminder of things we might want to nominate".
  • Will only affect controversial items.
  • Prevents the inertia of seemingly requiring full consensus to even have a discussion about the list, a cause of much frustration.
  • Prevents the somewhat chicken-and-egg situation of whether an ITN/C nomination comes first or ITN/R discussion.
  • Brings the ultimate decision to ITN/C, rather than hiding it on WT:ITN/R which is less well-visited. Effectively uses the main decision-making apparatus of ITN to make decisions about ITN, equalling the widest possible community involvement.
Example
  1. An editor nominates Remove: X' on WP:ITN/R
  2. A few other editors endorse this. An admin notices that the removal has reasonable support.
  3. X's listing on ITN/R is marked with a "probationary" tag.
  4. Next time X occurs it is nominated like a standard item, with a note on ITN/C regarding its status.
  5. If the community decides a regular occurrence of X is not notable, it is removed from ITN/R.

--LukeSurl t c 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure how we judge "only enough endorsements to show it is not a completely isolated view". As shown above, there are many examples of this community being unable to agree that a topic is no longer ITN/R-worthy, how does this differ, who judges this? Seems like less of a "half-way" and more of a "maintain the status quo almost entirely" position. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'd think that number would be about 5 given the current ITN regular "population", though weight of argument would always trump numbers. Our resident admins use judgement on ITN/C daily, I assume this would be within their capabilities. --LukeSurl t c 21:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why everything on ITN should be decided by ITN regulars, hence my proposal above. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partial support, as better than outright removal or doing nothing. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Consideration that one edition of an event is important enough to post does not logically lead to the conclusion that it will be perennially important enough (a sports event with a particular resonance, an historic change in government rather than a purely routine election, a a slow news week, yielding to a particularly insistent proponent, consensus swayed by influx of interested parties,...) Kevin McE (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on point 4 of the procedure I assumed that comments supporting posting while opposing ITNR would be an option. If this is incorrect I agree with you. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I've generally supported scrapping ITNR above, so I'm not disagreeing with the oppose, just the rationale. Are you seriously arguing that the World Cup final or the election of the U.S. President or the like would ever simply be ignored by news sources? I oppose ITNR because it isn't practical, but not because the concept isn't sound. There are some events which it would be foolish to think that, with a good article behind it, would ever get ignored by news sources. --Jayron32 23:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a starting point, if nothing else. I also wouldn't mind starting with a fresh list of events so we can avoid the "it wasn't discussed five years ago/it's been there for five years" debate. 331dot (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One darn thing at a time, please?

We've got an original discussion above that is 11 to 7 in favor of scrapping ITNR with many of the opposes in favor of a "reboot" which implies a scrapping first. Let's please continue or close that discussion with a formal closure before we star any more confusion of the issue. The above sub-proposals should be closed until the first issue is addressed and a consensus announced. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"which implies a scrapping first" - No, a reboot would be to review the procedure / the listing. That's totally separate from scrapping the idea of the policy itself. 174.114.112.77 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that confusing- we have one proposal to scrap ITNR and not do anything else; and another proposal to reform/replace it with something new. Some of the support votes in the first proposal also suggest a restart of some kind. The other minor proposals should be held in abeyance until these two are weighed and discussed. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal proposal: Japan Series baseball

Japan Series baseball. This sticks out like a sore thumb. Domestic tournament, doesn't appear to have a big international following (no global TV audience to speak of). Formerip (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the world's tenth most populous country. But it's the only non-Anglophone country to have a domestic sporting event listed at ITNR. Formerip (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not ITN/C. Whether contributors consider the event to be important or not is irrelevant. This is ITN/R: the only relevant issue is whether we are confident that the community will consider that the event is so important that it should be included at ITN every time it occurs. The only evidence for that is the unanimity with which previous nominations have been accepted. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nothing to do with the way the ITNR list was put together, you know. Each item was added because there was an agreement between editors that it was important enough. So removing an item because editors agree that it is not important enough would seem logical.
Any road, in this case we seem to have something that has never actually been posted in its own right. It was nominated in 2009. It got equal supports and opposes and then it was added to the blurb for the World Series: [1]. Formerip (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I argued above, a large part of why the ITN/R experiment Mk 1 failed was because fulfilling the meaning of ITN/R was never, or at least very rarely, the basis for electing items to ITN/R status. There is no point in repeating the error.
It has been demonstrated many times that it is false to claim that "Each item was added because there was an agreement between editors that it was important enough". Kevin McE (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that the problem is that editors didn't follow your idea of how ITNR should be put together, but that it has been demonstrated many times that they did? Formerip (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal proposal: Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final

It seems odd to single out a single Olympic event like this. The Olympics are covered with blurbs for the opening and closing ceremonies. I could see a case for mentioning the marathon in the closing ceremony blurb (as the medal ceremony is part of the closing ceremony), but no single event should have its own blurb. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During Olympic games we should reserve a sort-of sticky entry in ITN for recent events regarding the Olympics, updating a blurb frequently with quality-updated articles. (e.g. • 2014 Winter Olympics: Eddie the Eagle wins ski jumping gold in the large hill individual classification) I had this thought during the last Olympics. I wasn't going to propose this for a few months, but it would negate this ITN/R entry. LukeSurl t c 21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good idea. However, at London 2012 there were up to 32 gold medals per day (Vancouver maxed at 7), so there may be some problems to be worked out. (It would certainly be best to test the idea at a Winter Games.) 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't the foggiest. Presumably it could pass ITNC under the current regime. If desired, the ITNR entry for the World Championships could exclude Olympic years, if those championships are truly less important than other World Championships. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I realise it's odd to treat this one sport differently, but it's the top level of international competition in an internationally popular sport. The Olympics are the only time that the world's top players appear for their countries - the IIHF World Championships can only use NHL players if their team didn't make it to the NHL playoffs. Ice hockey is a popular sport in a large (and diverse) set of countries, so the top club (Stanley Cup) and international (Winter Olympics) competitions should be posted. If the ice hockey tournament was held separately to the rest of the Winter Olympics, it would be notable enough for ITNR on its own. So I think its worthy of its own blurb. Modest Genius talk 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that, with very few exceptions, the Olympic Games of either type is the top level international competition for [insert Olympic sport here]. Singling out one event for blurb level notability seems odd, especially when based on importance or notability within the selected sport (as opposed to importance or notablility compared with other Olympic events in the context of the Olympic Games). 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal proposal:World Nine-ball Championship

I don't know much about this sport, but as it failed to get posted in 2011 and failed to get nominated in 2012 it doesn't seem to be ITNR material. (Also consider: 2012 WPA World Nine-ball Championship) 88.88.165.222 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC) (I tested WikiBlame and found the addition based on this discussion where "9-ball" was mentioned twice.) 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion proposal: Olympic host city announcements

The two most recent had unanimous support. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are going to be reviewing the entire list(see above discussion about ITNR decommissioning), I would suggest any further suggested additions or removals be held in abeyance and discussed in the context of reforming the entire list and once how such a discussion should be carried out is determined. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Any thoughts on how this discussion should be carried out? 88.88.165.222 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My initial suggestion would probably be that we simply start the list over and determine what should be on it anew, but I'm sure the community will fashion a means to carry out the review of the list. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support the idea of re-working the list but I don't think it is at all clear from the above discussion that there is consensus to do it. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the votes opposing decommissioning outright (and some who supported it) still conceded that the list should be reformed or reworked in some fashion; that was the sense I got anyway. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose announce the city once it's selected, otherwise it's just a bunch of "also rans". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final selection (i.e. IOC's announcement) is what I've nominated (see links). I would not support posting (let alone listing on ITNR) variations of "London announces its candidacy to host the 2012 Summer Olympics".88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items&oldid=546990415"