Wikipedia talk:In the news

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Making a big deal out of everything

As usual, TRM has found it necessary to attack on multiple fronts with insults and guns blazing, making a big deal out of everything counter to his own edit summary. Yesterday he removed the ready tag from the exoplanets nomination, because ivotes by people who disgree with him are invalid in his eyes. Now he's attacking me at the field goal nomination, which he opposes, and closing it himself as if he's some sort of uninvolved party. I have re-opened it, and ask that an actually uninvolved party close it. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it. I can judge half a dozen SNOW votes to close, just because I happen to agree, it's not going to change the world. Secondly, your !vote was nothing short of amazing. We persistently disagree but you normally have a good case to answer. In this situation I found it beyond belief. Bloke kicks ball 67 yards. It happens every week here in the UK. Are you serious? Anyway, I posted the exoplanet nom because you were (eventually) correct that there was sufficient (well argued, not when you first [ready]-ed it) argument to post it. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ignorant opinion, TRM. Clearly rugby is not the same as American football and you're smart enough to know that. 98.180.48.65 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Far from ignorant, well-informed in fact. The fact that a man in America has managed to kick a ball the same distance as men around the world do every week is simply not news. Now move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be punting a more appropriate comparison for rugby drop goals? Gridiron football field-goals aren't exactly the same as rugby drop goals as there's another person holding the ball in gridiron. –H T D 07:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say nothing of the weight and dimensions of a gridiron game ball compared to a rugby game ball. There really is no means for comparison here.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'd be MUCH easier to kick a gridiron ball that far. Look how far they can be thrown, (and how often, that's not easy/impossible with a rugby ball. Anyway, my "ignorant opinion" aside, the item was strongly opposed. This discussion, while mildly amusing, is a waste of time, particularly as we know the SNOW close was fully justified. Time to do something else less boring instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really base on how easily the American football ball can be kicked on passing plays; the American football ball is built to be passed at a further distance by a person's hands and not to be kicked; rugby balls are kicked with more regularity than American football balls and passes are usually shorter (and laterally instead of at a forward motion). According to our article on Football (ball), an American football ball weighs 14 to 15 ounces; a rugby union ball weighs 14 to 16 ounces. Unless the American football ball has better aerodynamic properties, they weigh pretty much the same. The longest punt, the nearest comparison to a movement on rugby drop goals, was 98 yards. –H T D 14:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You realise a rugby penalty kick is more analagous? Anyway, now you mention a punt going 98 yards, it makes this "news" item even more sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about body mechanics, I think the proper comparison for a rugby penalty kick is the Kickoff (gridiron football); both cases usually involve a tee. A gridiron football field goal involves a holder; I don't think there's a "play" in rugby where a "holder" is used. Also, the gridiron football's uprights are ten yards away from the goal line, unlike rugby's which are on the goal line. Finally, the gridiron kicker usually can't kick the ball with more power than a punter because he might hit the holder, and the holder's a very much a player in the play as the way he holds the ball affects how far the ball goes. –H T D 15:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, tees in rugby have only been around for a couple of decades. When I played rugby, penalties were kicked from the ground, from a dent you made in the pitch with your heel. Much harder to get distance, yet rugby players in the past have made 80-yard kicks in this manner. With a much denser (often saturated) ball. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about tees in gridiron, but a person can more confidently kick anything either from a tee or from a dent on the ground against an object being held by somebody else. You wouldn't care about what happens to the tee or to the ground but the person holding the ball for you is an actual person. That's why punts (98 yards), kickoffs and even passes (99 yards) go further than field-goals (64 yards) in gridiron. –H T D 15:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this is now beginning to sound like excuse after excuse. Kicking a saturated rugby ball from a dent in the ground over 80 yards in the 1980s trumps the 2013 field goal. But as I said, moot point, as the discussion was closed as a SNOW fail, quite rightly, and while (once again) I've found this to be interesting, it's nothing more than that, so it's not helping Wikipedia really. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snooping around, the longest rugby field goal at the highest levels was Paul Thorburn's 70 yards in 1986, from a dent in the ground and a damp (and heavier) ball. The 64 yard field goal in the NFL would be 74 yards in rugby, and that's with another person holding the ball for the kicker, but on a higher altitude in Denver. As you said, different sporting events, different rules, different conditions, but should be identical snow close if Thorburn's kick happened today... –H T D 16:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. That's the longest penalty in international rugby. You need to go back to the 1940s to find the real record, a kick of 81 yards. So the field goal of 2013 was vastly exceeded nearly 70 years ago. And no-one ever mentioned that a rugby penalty kick should ever be nominated. Much like the field goal nomination, it would be nonsensical. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to list records in any level, there's this 69-yard field-goal kicked in 1976; in rugby terms that's 79 yards. I dunno if holders were involved. Actually, there's a third player, the long snapper, so with so many variables outside the kicker's control these 79-yard gridiron field goals are a class in itself, as opposed to penalties or drop goals to involve only one person who's in control of everything. –H T D 14:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying this 2013 field goal isn't even a record? Bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an NFL record, as the nominator said. I don't know what level that 69 yarder was in 1976. College? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 69-yard gridiron field goal record was in college (NAIA); the 81-yard rugby penalty was in... high school? –H T D 17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High school (in your US terms) versus the British Army, but that makes it even more amazing, that 70 years ago, an individual kicked a heavy piece of pig skin over eighty yards, something that the US field goal folks haven't even yet achieved it with all the "at altitude" and "high technology materials" things designed to improve this kind of thing. Looks like a wise move we never posted it!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the field goal is not analogous to any rugby play as there are three people needed to make the play; the nearest examples are punts, and apparently the longest punt ever at any level was at 108 yards by Zenon Andrusyshyn of the CFL's Toronto Argonauts at Edmonton on October 23, 1977. But punts are not scoring plays; indeed they're taken if a team is screwed (lol). The fact that there's a wide discrepancy between the furthest punt (108 yards) and the longest field goal (69 yards) tells you that there are too many variables in kicking a field goal vs. punting; it's not just simply "kicking" like kicking a ball from a dent in the ground.

So kicking a field goal isn't a good measure of physical strength by one man, but a good measure of teamwork of three people, a precise movement balanced by strength of the kicker, as the kicker has to kick the ball, which isn't designed to be kicked, at a great distance. All of this while making sure he doesn't kick the hands of the holder, the holder makes sure the ball is in a perfect position and angle, which depends upon on how the long snapper passed the ball to him. Compare this to a kicker in rugby where he doesn't really have to target his feet at the ball as he is holding it himself. –H T D 20:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's been done before, and further, this very nomination is pointless. It's clear that kicking 60+ yards in sport is not notable enough for ITN. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All this is just going further to prove that NFL kicking and rugby kicking can't really be compared due to multitude of variant factors.--WaltCip (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and to prove that kicking a ball 60+ yards is no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is silly. People who are involved frequently do snow closes. They're done on the basis that no reasonable editor could disagree. And I really don't see how anyone could disagree with TRM that this item had a snowball's chance of being posted. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting load of I Don't Like It and OR. Since when has a record in cricket been viewed as void because of a record in basketball? You'd think an admin would argue on policy, just not make things up as he went along. We might as well ignore Parliament because it is not the same as Congress. This is a 40 year record when looked at on the merits. But sure, close the discussion down quick based on a few overseas opposes who don't even know the details of the game involved. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yawn. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punting and kickoffs tend to yield more yardage than place-kicking for a score, because accuracy is less important. Here's an NFL punt from some years ago which went some 70 yards on the fly, and that's not even the NFL record.[1] O'Neal's record punt of 98 yards included 75 yards in the air.[2] The fact it took 43 years to beat Tom Dempsey's 63-yard field goal record is pretty amazing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins attention needed

There are several stories ready to be posted in WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most ridiculous edits ever?

Please compare these two versions of ITN, and explain why reprinting the entire Alan Turing, Greenpeace, Pussy Riot, and Khodorkovsky articles on the front page is a good idea. These bizarre edits should be rolled back immediately, and the sole rock > punk edit with any consensus should be instituted. Either that or we should add that Turing was a castrato, and name all the Greenpeace members individually. μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole is not a useful method of rational discussion. --Jayron32 06:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard hyperbolics. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feuding needs to stop

Over the past several weeks, there has been an escalation in pointless sniping, bickering, and quarreling between two of the most experienced editors active on ITN. (You both know who you are.) This needs to stop at once, because I believe it is permeating far too many threads and has become a distraction from the business of running ITN, not to mention an embarrassment to everyone else reading here.

I hope that this note will be sufficient to put an end to this situation and that I won't find myself having to post to ANI to figure out whether some type of action needs to be taken. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that they know who they are? HiLo48 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newyorkbrad, no, I'd like you to post to ANI because I keep being threatened with it by her, like a boy who cries wolf. One imagines an interaction ban would be ideal, how that works in practice when we both post to ITN frequently I know not. Perhaps an ITN ban for a while would be good, that'd probably encourage us both to go and improve actual articles (or go Facebooking at the ref desks). Having said that, I'd also like you to ask her to remove her personal attack she sneakily added to Jayron32's talk page which she asked him to remove after reading. I'd also like you ask Jayron32 to allow it be redacted as he seems to enjoy encouraging such personal attacks. And yes, it's Christmas, such a shame there appear to be so many cold hearts out there. (By the way, happy Christmas Brad and HiLo48!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that, like many posts here, this is utterly pointless. Applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News bar

IP keeps claiming against OSE that because something didn't happen last ear it cant be added in future. It is clearly current in the days news that today IS Christmas. And its the only contrib(Lihaas (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Not sure why "celebrating Christmas" should be in the current events portal, it's obvious. If Christmas was cancelled, that'd be a different matter. Having said that, does it say "England celebrate St George's Day" every March 23? If so, then fine, keep Xmas. All that aside, this is no big deal, and really nothing to do with ITN, more to do with Portal:Current events. (P.S. what is OSE?) (P.P.S. Happy Xmas Lihaas) The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas is much more widely celebrated though. What with the Popes first message? (ooh! good version to post!)

btw- I did put it on portal current events not ITNC, and that's okey per you? Some IP was reverting away

WP:OSE

You too.Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2014

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this is a fucking menace to the project and has more to do with glory hunting than being any net plus to the project? That's my quality contribution. Too bad that you won't bother to read it: too busy being "a supervisor of Wikicup" to do anything useful.--87.114.24.206

If you don't like it, then don't participate. There is no need to curse and be offensive. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was the very existence of Wikicup is itself damaging. Things like FA status or ITN posts are supposed to attach to the articles concerned, not to the editors that perceive that they have "done" it, so they have brownie points when they self-nominate at FAC. The project would be better if these trophies were abolished completely: the people actively seeking admin status (for all it is worth) are precisely the ones that shouldn't have it.

If you don't believe me, look at the quality of today's featured article. I haven't read it or even know its subject matter, but the I can guarantee that it will be the work of one or possibly two authors looking for an honor, producing a hopelessly biased and/or misinformed article, and then going on to tout it as "the best of Wikipedia". 87.114.24.206 (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]