Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

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

Removal proposal: Struga Poetry Evenings

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

---

The last two winners (Mongane Wally Serote (2012) and Mateja Matevski (2011)) weren't featured on ITN, nor was Struga Poetry Evenings ever. This is not a genuine ITN/R. I'm not sure how this was added to ITN/R. Seems particularly anomalous when "Struga Poetry Evenings" gets 36k hits on Google while the much "less important" Forward Poetry Prize records nearly 200k. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Remove. If we don't know why it was added, and it isn't getting posted despite being listed, it should be removed from the list. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Remove. I seem to remember some discussion on ITN/C about this, which was during a discussion of the Poet Laureate. But it clearly isn't getting any attention, and doesn't seem to be of much media or reader interest. Modest Genius ^talk 21:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Link to original discussion. Oppose as I could only find one hit on bbc.co.uk when googling the term.88.88.164.36 (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• OK, let's think this another way. It would seem sensible to have some representation for the culturally important domain of poetry in ITN/R - it'll be quite infrequent that poetry will generate an "unexpected" news item of a non-recurring nature that would result in a regular ITN/C blurb. Question, is this the top award in poetry (across all languages)? Is there another award, or even a collection of awards, that we should include in ITN/R to cover poetry. Looking at List of poetry awards it would seem to me that the Struga evenings have quite a good case for being the premier award for international poetry across all languages. It is certainly the best article for a poetry-only award. (tl;dr -- Keep) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's fair enough, but where's the "in the news" style coverage we'd expect from winners of this "prestigious" poetry prize? Why didn't the last two winners make it to the main page? What's the point of an ITN/R that hasn't made it to ITN for two years? I'm not even sure this was ever nominated... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone?? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove. Interest seems very low both inside and outside Wikipedia. The article only had around 50 daily hits in August 2012 [1] when the event was last held. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove - Very low interest. We generally post the appointment of British poets laureate; what other events might we nominate (at ITNC, not here) to better represent this significant area of human endeavour? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

• Remove per nominator. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Biggest sporting event in heavily populated country. --Jayron32 20:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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: [2]. Formerip (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Remove this can always be renominated on an ad-hoc basis; there's no evidence it's notable enough for an automatic pass. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Remove never heard of it and it would be useful to discuss why it should be ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Remove per Medeis. Modest Genius ^talk 13:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Someone "never hearing of this" is not sufficient reason to remove something, as I'm sure that would be the case with many, if not all events. There's always someone living under a rock somewhere relative to an event. How does one person "not hearing of this" demonstrate that it is not notable? That said, I would need to see more proof that it is equivalent to the World Series as a top-tier tournament to support its retention in ITNR, and as such I support remove. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep having never heard of it is totally irrelevant. I've never heard of the Six Nations Championship, but still recognized it's relevance. Being a domestic tournament is also irrelevant, it's highly important in Japan, and remember Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.. Re-nominating on an ad-hoc basis leads to inconsistency and the usual bickering about the importance of XYZ sporting event. Lastly, the articles are updated to a decent quality and are definitely good enough to feature on the main page. So for all those reasons, a strong keep from me. --IP98 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every year. Listing at ITN/R would not serve to avoid an annual discussion with an entirely predictable outcome, which is the only reason for listing something at ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that a single oppose to inclusion on ITN/R is reason to strike the item from ITN/R? --IP98 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but I am distinguishing between a !vote for posting at ITN/C ("I believe this is important enough to post today") and a !vote for inclusion at ITN/R ("This is something that I believe the community would consider important enough to post every time it occurs"). It makes sense to !vote in the face of non-trivial opposition in the former case, not in the latter. See comments on the Olympic ice hockey below. Kevin McE (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every year. I interpret that to mean "if an item is opposed on ITN/R then it may be opposed on ITN/C and therefore should not be included at ITN/R". Is that interpretation correct? --IP98 (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is enough opposition to make the conclusion that consensus to post will be present dubious, then yes, I would oppose ITN/R listing and encourage others to do likewise. Do you accept the distinction between ITN/C style votes and ITN/R votes that I make above? Kevin McE (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What is "enough opposition"? I'm asking because you're proposing a major change to the way Wikipedia operates. Suggesting "no consensus to remove" an item from ITN/R === "it should not be on ITN/R" it a big stretch for me, and I strongly oppose that notion. --IP98 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You ask a question by selectively omitting the answer to it: "enough opposition to make the conclusion that consensus to post will be present dubious". That is probably best not treated with a strict mathematical formula: an administrator should decide upon, and be answerable for, closing a discussion with due consideration to the effect of the closing decision.

It is clear every time that it is nominated at ITN/C that the inclusion of the All Ireland Football Championship is contentious (not unthinkable, but contentious), but we are told that we may not even discuss it each year because its removal was discussed with a 6-6 stalemate.

I am at a loss as to how you believe that a decision here that has no meaningful consensus (anything less than an overwhelming "retain") can have enough authority to disqualify any discussion regarding consensus as to importance at a page with far more participants.

I ask again, do you accept the distinction between ITN/C style votes ("I think it's important enough to post") and ITN/R votes ("I am confident that the community will consider this important enough for the foreseeable future) that I make above? Kevin McE (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

De-archiving this - can someone who hasn't commented please make a close decision? Formerip (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Whoa didn't see this before. How is this different from having the English Premier League on ITN/R? As soccer is to England, so is baseball to Japan. I see plenty of news coverage about the Japan Series from past years in just a cursory Google News search. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Where you won't see it is on a TV set outside Japan. That's the difference. Formerip (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - One of the most important domestic baseball championships there is. A sporting contest doesn't have to be the unique most prestigious, nor to be international, in order to attract our attention. I've been thinking a lot about the posting of sporting events here. I was surprised that the FA Cup did not get posted this week, but on reflection the argument is correct - it's really declined in prominence in the past 20 years. That's not an argument against domestic contests, but a reminder that we need to review this list regularly. I find this comment from the proposer of this move to be very telling: "it's the only non-Anglophone country to have a domestic sporting event listed at ITNR". If we remove this, domestic sport on en.wikipedia will be an exclusively English-speaking affair. And I must repeat what I have said before: this is Wikipedia in English, not Wikipedia about English speakers. What became of the proposal to include La Liga and the Bundesliga as well? I still support those. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively to making ITN exclusively about domestic sport in English-speaking countries, we could identify and nominate other domestic sport stories that are of genuine worldwide interest, rather than maintaining a place at ITNR for something plucked at random in the name of tokenism. Formerip (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Per Alex Tiefling. Plus it's one of the most significant sporting competitions in all of Asia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Bundesliga and La Liga probably should have been considered. Annoyingly these competitions were dominated by Bayen Munich and Barcelona to such an extent that when they did eventually technically become unassailable, it wasn't big news and escaped nomination attention. Though we've missed the chance for an ITN/C candidacy, I still think we could decide to place one or both on ITN/R - listing would likely help avoid 'accidental' omission of nomination for one. This is probably a discussion for another section however. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Addition of Tokyo Marathon to World Marathon Majors recurring item

According to the World Marathon Majors, as of 24th February 2013, the Tokyo Marathon has been included as the sixth major world marathon race. Seeing as all the other races are included it stands to reason this one should be as well. See also: 2013 Tokyo Marathon Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 12:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't support or oppose this in principle, but it doesn't look as if it has ever been accepted at ITNC, which is often considered to be a pre-requisite. Why would it not make sense to first nominate the race when it next comes around and see what the response is like? Formerip (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP. See if Tokyo's new official status results in any actual enhancement to public/media interest etc. Best to run it past ITN/C next time it happens. Modest Genius ^talk 17:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the marathons might get a bit of a rough ride when (if?) we get to the ITN/R review: they have I think frequently passed without even being nominated, which must cast doubt on whether the ITN community really believes them to be that important. While we await the review, this is not the best time to be raising new proposals, and as others have said, there should be evidence that the event can pass ITN/C with overwhelming support before it can really be considered here. Kevin McE (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to see this tested at ITN before nominating it here. I'm a little unclear on this but perhaps if the WMM is some sort of tournament with a winner at the end, perhaps we should change the entry to posting simply the winner of the WMM instead of each race. Each race could still be nominated individually if desired. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very limited international interest for a sports event under ITN consideration. Here are peak daily page views for the relevant article (some didn't have a year article) at the latest race of the six World Marathon Majors: Boston: 64126, New York: 27446 (cancelled in 2012 so 2011 is linked), London: 12792, Chicago: 4630, Berlin: 1337, Tokyo: 671. 5 ITN's for marathon is already too much for such a small sport. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose six marathon ITN/Rs?! We have six Nobel Prizes per year, that's ok, we have one architecture prize a year, compared to marathons....?!! Two (two) music ITN/Rs, yet we already have five marathon ITN/Rs and this proposes to add a sixth? Not a chance. As Kevin said above, there's a good chance when we reboot ITN/R that all but a couple of these marathons will survive, and even then only they're lucky. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Remove proposal - Heineken Cup

Withdrawn by nominator - Forget it. Thoroughly derailed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose removing the Heineken Cup from ITN/R. Two European rugby cups are on ITN/R, and are contested by the same 6 countries. The Heineken Cup is contested by "provincial and regional" teams. The Six Nations Championship is contested by the national teams. Consensus seems to be that only top level sport is posted. It was in the initial creation of ITN/R [3]. --IP98 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Comment I have no real issue removing this, but I'd like this to set a precedent that we re-examine all the "original" ITN/R items as it seems this possible argument will arise each and every time an "original" ITN/R item appears, particularly given the pointed comments of some contributors at ITN/C. It would be best we check them all rather than divert discussions on the main ITN/C page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Someone had a suggestion for that, I don't know what came of it. I think you're right that they all need a re-visit, but I would like this item considered on it's own since it's here now. --IP98 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Hopefully you'll be checking every ITN/R that appeared in that first "batch" and procedurally nominating then? Sounds like a magnificent idea to me. I opposed a second tier event at ITN/C and was told that it needed to be removed from ITN/R. I've initiated that process. This is where my interest and motivation begins and ends. I have no interest in a second round of being repeatedly called a liar, and will not be engaging in a systematic review of ITNR. I have no idea how this thread has been turned into a discussion on a systematic review. I have no interest in, or obligation to satisfy your request for "consistency". Regards. --IP98 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Oppose removal - there are four stories per year for rugby union, the world cup, the (formerly known as) tri-nations (which is only between..... four.... four... four countries), Super Rugby (club competition for just three, three countries), Six nations and the Heineken Cup. This is no big deal. Moreover, a club competition between six nations is something akin to all these college level US sports we're continually inundated with, 10s of 1000s of spectators watch this final live, millions watch it on the television. And it provides some good diversity from "soccer" and "baseball" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC) "All these college level US sports" are routinely opposed as "not top of sport" despite the 10s of 1000s of live spectators and millions on television. The Heineken Cup is regional and provincial teams. How is it a "top level" competition? We already have the national teams from the same six countries posted annually. --IP98 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC) It's "in the news". However, having stated your concern with the six nations as well, I suppose you should nominate National Rugby League, Superleague, and Super Rugby tournaments for consistency please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC) See above. --IP98 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Insufficient really. If you're looking to make sure ITN hasn't got "second-tier" rugby tournaments, then those above all need to be removed according to your criteria I'm afraid. Heaven help us if someone nominates a college basketball/baseball/hockey/football final ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I've clearly stated my intentions and motivations. I have not stated that I am looking to make sure ITN hasn't got "second-tier" rugby tournaments. My actions are sufficient to achieve my stated goal. --IP98 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC) So you're happy with the above mentioned tournaments remaining in the ITN/R or do we have go through this tedium each time? I'd like to understand your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Comment. I'll second TRM and suggest that we discuss and come to a consensus on a new ITNR list using the current list as a starting point, item by item. Items that don't gain consensus to be on the new list will not be on it. I thought that was the plan from the recent failed discussion to abolish it outright. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Comment. I'll also support the general idea of a review, but I think we may first need to have a discussion about a discussion, or else there's a risk that it will turn into chaos. Formerip (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Agreed. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Comment This is a tournament routinely ignored in my native country b/c it generates little interest...plus, our teams never do well. What I will say is that IP98 is amazing when it comes to setting one set of rules for EU sports and another for American ones...--85.210.101.34 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Clarify please. --IP98 (talk) What a joke - IP98 made a perfectly reasonable request to discuss one item and several editors who know better have decided to make this personal because they don't like him and have ruined any chance of an actually productive discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Well perhaps you should comment on the proposal and get this back on track. All I've done is discuss the issue at hand. As far as I can tell, so has everyone else bar the IP. I suggest you actively participate rather than just get indignant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't this be in the form of Keep/Remove votes, (with remove being the default result, given the listing is there because of a previously existing strong consensus?) As it stands, we seem to have a debate on the question itself. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC) No, it's a community discussion, not a vote. It evolves to improve the Wikipedia and its articles (and those editors who edit said articles' approach). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Parameters for reviewing the ITNR list

I'm going to be bold and start this conversation; if this isn't the proper way to do so, I welcome being corrected.

The recent discussion to decommission ITNR outright did not result in a consensus to do so, but there did seem to be agreement among persons on both sides that some sort of review of the list was need and/or would be helpful. I am starting this conversation to establish the parameters for such a review.

My initial proposal is that we use the existing list as a starting point to create a new list. We can take each item on the current list and discuss the merits of including it in ITNR, as if it was being discussed for the first time. If it gains consensus for inclusion, it would be put on the new list; if it does not gain consensus, then it would not be included. Once all events on the current list were reviewed, it would be removed and the new list put in its place. I would also suggest that any brand new suggestions for ITNR be held until the existing list was reviewed, as there will be a lot of discussions going on.

This would result in a record of discussion for each item that can be referenced in the future(something which we don't have now, especially for events on the current list since it was created) and ensure that the list does indeed contain events that the community has deemed notable enough for regular inclusion(assuming adequate quality).

My proposal is a general one and I welcome suggestions for specifics, changes, or even completely different ideas. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea. How should we do this? RFC for each item then move to the next or should we engage in multiple RFCs at a time? How long should RFCs remain open for? Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support This seems sensible. We could probably have several items open for discussion at the same time. It might make sense to discuss all the items for a particular sport (or other topic) at the same time. I don't agree, though, that people should be precluded from nominating new items during the review process. For instance, when discussing football we might well want to consider whether having the EPL as the only national league truly reflects the relative importance of other club leagues (e.g. La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga). Neljack (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment before staring I think it would help to codify the "rules" for inclusion. At the NCAA thread several people indicated that since it failed ITN/C it shouldn't be added to ITR/R, yet below in the "Giro d'Italia" discussion I'm being berated for suggesting the same. --IP98 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I guess the most important rule is WP:CON. So it's really up to your ability to convince people using strong arguments. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• But it's difficult to achieve consensus if people have quite different ideas about what the the purpose of ITN/R is and how items should be evaluated. The issue over whether an item should have been previously (successfully) nominated at ITN/C before being put on ITN/R is related to a more fundamental disagreement: are we are judging whether an item has clear community consensus or whether we think it is sufficiently important (each time it occurs) to satisfy the importance criterion for ITN/C? I hold the latter view (which seems to be how the list has been compiled), but some ITN regulars hold the former views. If this disagreement isn't resolved it will lead to people talking past each other and make consensus more difficult to achieve. Neljack (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The other thing that needs to be worked out is whether items where there is no consensus should be retained or removed. Personally since we're doing a full review I'd be happy to say that only items with consensus should be on the new list. I recall, however, that there was a discussion a few months ago on this issue which (ironically!) couldn't reach consensus. Neljack (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That was about discussing existing items on the list and if consensus was not reached to keep them. I am proposing creating a brand new list, where an item not achieving consensus would result in it not being on the new list. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for multiple RfC's. What could be established is that Items specifically be nominated newly for ITN as recurring items, and if they pass with say, at least 3/4 vote in favor of ITNR at that point they would be confirmed to the list. The big problem now is we have so many items on it with absolutely no evidence of even 3/5 support. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comments. Firstly, we should be incorporating a general look at the list, as well as considering individual items. We want balance out of the list, we want it to be long enough to be useful but not so long as to be unmanageable, we want it to be reasonably consistent between items and topic areas in terms of what it considers ITNR-worthy. Secondly, we need an understanding in advance as to what constitutes a consensus for this purpose. Different people have different ideas, it seems, with some thinking we need near unanimity and others almost thinking that inclusion can be worked out by a logical process, so that objections can be disregarded. The whole exercise is going to be useless if we have inconsistent closes. How we close generally should be considered, because I can picture users hanging back from discussions in order to cast supervotes. Thirdly, I think retaining the current set-up as a default position should be an option in the event that things get messy - which implies that we do not make amendments as we go but, for example, after we have dealt with a sub-section. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• It would be best to try to figure out a general framework to evaluate items. My preference would be a well advertised, community wide RfC on ITN in general. That is, are we too selective, not selective enough, what are we consistently missing, are items "very important to only one country" worthy of posting, etc. We need to know what the community feels is important before we can decide what is "obvious" enough for ITN/R. If we don't do that, it will just be the dozen or so regulars voting on "party lines" (at least when it comes to sports). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It is important to recognise that ITNC is a local consensus. ITNR could serve a dual purpose of listing "obvious posts" for keeping the events on the radar, as well as a mechanism for a Wikipedia-wide consensus on various recurring events to bypass a local no consensus (or consensus against posting) among ITNC regulars. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is exactly what I meant. The RFC should briefly explain what is ITN/R and how it is different from ITN/C as well as giving a brief explanation about history of the process and the reasons behind the RFC. I think it should be done in stages:

• The first stage could be an optional one in which we ask if people like the current process or would like to change it.
• Since we already had an RFC on we whether want ITN/R to go or be reformed, then we can skip this stage (unless there's a strong feeling it wasn't done probably).
• The third stage is how the reform should take place: 1. Should we make a new list in which all items must get consensus to be included (no consensus = no inclusion) or should those with no consensus stay? 2. Should any item that failed in getting consensus for posting in ITN/C in the past be disqualified? 3. Should any item that wasn't nominated in ITN/C in the past be disqualified? 4. How many items should be up for discussion at a time?
• The forth stage is where we start discussing the items depending on the result of the previous stage.

• So actually it could be only two stages. Opinions? Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• My initial suggestion above discusses some of what you mention. I think that we should make a new list using the current list as a starting point. Each event would be discussed and consensus sought on whether it should be placed on the revised list. No consensus, no placement on the revised list. I have proposed not dealing with events which are not currently on the list until the current members of the list have been worked through; once that happens (or if we elect not to do that) I don't think we need to specifically prohibit items that did not pass ITNC; I think the community is capable of seeing such events and dealing with them accordingly.

I have given thought to how many discussions should take place at one time; there seems to be roughly 70-80 events on the list or so. One a week is obviously impractical (it would take over a year to create the new list) and discussing the entire list at once is also impractical (whether it is as a block or each item given an individual discussion). Something in between would seem to be the best; maybe 10 a week? It would only take a couple months to go through the list with that number. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I meant an RfC on the direction of ITN in general (not just ITN/R). We can't expect the broader community to participate in 70 discussions on individual items, but we could hopefully interest them in one discussion on the direction of ITN (what are we not posting enough of?, etc.) and use it as feedback. The reason I say ITN in general and not ITN/R is that ITN/R should just be items that always "pass" based on our normal standards, so getting feedback on our normal standards is what we really need. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• There must be a significant proportion, possibly a majority, of the list that are wholly uncontroversial and we can pass by 'Acclamation'. I doubt anyone thinks we shouldn't be including Academy Awards or the FIFA World Cup. Let's pick the low-hanging-fruit here first, then we can work out where we need RfC involvement. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Uber Cup and Thomas Cup - proposed removal from ITN/R

In the universal sport of badminton, we have two cups that aren't competed for "at the highest level" currently listed at WP:ITN/R. Unless I'm mistaken, these have never been listed at ITN. We do still have BWF World Championships listed, the de facto "world championship" for this sport. I propose the removal of the auxiliary tournaments from ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I note that the Thomas Cup article states (in the lede): "Thomas Cup and, to a lesser extent, Uber Cup are possibly the world's "biggest" and most prestigious regularly held badminton events in terms of player and fan interest. For many they trump major tournaments for individual competitors such as the venerable All-England Championships, the BWF World Championships, and even the badminton competitions at the Olympic Games." This statement doesn't seem to be sourced, but I wonder if anyone with greater knowledge of badminton than I possess can enlighten us on the point. Neljack (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, these tournaments, I'm sure, are significant to some (who?!) just like college football in the US are significant to others, but this is English Wikipedia, we need to understand what impact this has on the English-speaking community of the universe! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't see that the fact that this is the English Wikipedia means we should include only items that are popular in English-speaking countries. I thought this was a universal encyclopaedia, not one of English-speaking countries. Neljack (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Well there you go, I suppose the systemic bias towards items and articles that interest the world's English-speaking public will naturally float to the top, right or wrong. That's why we see US college basketball finals instead of dozens killed in suicide bombs in the Middle East I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: add Giro d'Italia to the cycling section of ITN/R

This is second only to the Tour de France in cycling, and cycling is a global sport, unlike baseball and ice hockey and American football. It would be useful to consider including it at ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure what American football has to do with anything, ice hockey is a global and Olympic sport... Regardless, has this ever been nominated at ITN/C? --IP98 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, American football isn't a "global" sport, cycling is. And ice hockey is not global (they play that in India? China? Australia? Peru?). The Giro is all over the news in Europe. Just wondered if anyone else considered it as important as the "ice hockey" finals... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    Though totally irrelevant to your nomination: Australian Ice Hockey League --IP98 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Yes, and the UK has an ice hockey tournament too. But what relevance?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

      • You specifically asked "they play that in ... Australia?"--IP98 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Regardless, has this ever been nominated at ITN/C? --IP98 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You tell me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • (For what it's worth, in about a week, it will be...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure why it would be up to me to research your nomination. Several editors above indicated that an item should pass an ITN/C nom before it can be considered for ITN/R. Maybe let this one wait about a week? --IP98 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • And many editors have indicated that ITN/R is "just fine" which clearly it isn't. Are you adding a new "unwritten" perquisite to items being added to ITN/R? Interesting. Where are the guidelines please? Or the "rules" as some editors seem to dictate these days! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
            • And many editors have indicated that ITN/R is "just fine" which clearly it isn't. <-- irrelevant. Are you adding a new "unwritten" perquisite to items being added to ITN/R? <-- no. Interesting. Where are the guidelines please? Or the "rules" as some editors seem to dictate these days! <-- impossible to answer. --IP98 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
            • I don't understand why you must manufacture conflict. Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that any story proposed for ITN/R ought to have been nominated at ITN/C -- and passed -- at some point, at the very least. There's nothing unreasonable or "interesting" about that. And, that doesn't rule this out anyway because the Giro d'Italia was nominated and posted last year -- although partially because a Canadian won it. It would have taken just a few minutes to discover that. That being said, I'm not sure why this couldn't wait until after this year's race is nominated next week. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
              • "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur" is bollocks I'm afraid, the first pass at ITN/R was without discussion. Go check the history. Show me (and Medeis) where there was a consensus that stated the Heineken Cup has "already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time [it] occurs". We have several dozen items in ITN/R for which have never had any consensus. While we're at it, what is the "'importance' criterion"? Where is that defined? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose addition. Cycling is indeed global, but it's prestige has taken a massive hit in the last decade, and it was a pretty niche sport anyway. I'm against giving the Giro a free pass on ITN. The Giro isn't near the TDF in terms of prestige; many top riders don't compete in it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I guess I'm just drawn to this as we have three badminton ITN/R's right now, three baseball, five rugby union and five marathon ITN/Rs. One imagines that more people cycle than play baseball, rugby union, run marathons combined and then some, so this has more relevance to a wider audience than the other niche nominations. But thanks for your interest. (FWIW, the BBC, The New York Times, The Sydney Morning Herald etc all cover the Giro daily, so there's no doubt it's "in the news", but perhaps doesn't match the "the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN" [whatever that means]). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: National Rugby League, Superleague, and Super Rugby

Since the Heineken Cup is no longer considered by several editors to be "top of its profession" (and hence not worthy of ITN/R) , then these shouldn't either, so I propose their removal from ITN/R purely from a perspective that we need consistency here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Might have been better to do separate threads for each of these. --IP98 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Super League is the top-level professional rugby league club competition in Europe. Six Nations is national teams right? This is top level professional teams, so I see no reason to strike it. --IP98 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know the difference between Super Rugby and the NRL. --IP98 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It pretty much mirrors the differences between the Heineken Cup and Super League. They are both the top professional club competitions in the southern hemisphere for their respective codes. Super Rugby consists of fifteen teams, five in each of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The NRL consists of 16 teams (nine based in New South Wales, one in Melbourne, one in New Zealand, one in the ACT and three in Queensland). Super Rugby is superseded by the Tri nations an annual competition between the national teams of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. There is not really a bigger annual competition than the NRL for league, although a case could be made for State of Origin. In terms of numbers the NRL gets more interest (newspaper articles, TV viewers and spectators) in Australia than union. Super Rugby is the more widely watched and reported on in New Zealand and South Africa. I am not sure what is more popular outside those countries. The current version of the NRL started in 1998 (but has been expanded from a NSW competition that has run since 1908). Super rugby started in 1995 (expanding from Super 6/10 which started in 1992). AIRcorn (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see the discussions which established these as items. Without such documentation they should be summarily removed. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

These mention adding or removing the items. Most are on rugby union. AIRcorn (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 1#Rugby
• Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 1#Rugby 2
• Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 1#NRL
• Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 2#Open proposals
• Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 5#Super Rugby
• Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 5#Removing items from the list.

Heineken Cup was added at the very first draft of WP:ITN/C without any consensus as far as I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support removals - per reasoning. As I post this, we have five blurbs. Three are sports stories. This is evidence that ITN/R is broken and that it causes ITN to be out of balance. We really need to fix it by removing a majority of sports requirements. Sports has become the tail that wags the ITN dog, and the feature winds up looking trivial. Jusdafax 08:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing certain sports from ITNR doesn't preclude them from being nominated and posted as a regular candidate.(unless you are arguing the chances are these events wouldn't get posted annually) We also cannot control the occurrence of non-sports events that might be worthy of posting- it has been slow in that department, which might be why the sports seem to be showing up more. That said, if there is no discussion to back up their presence on ITNR, they should be removed. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose removals - I am comfortable that all these events are the top of their respective sports (not sure why a complaint about Heineken Cup precludes nominating two rugby league competitions). Also note that the Heineken Cup discussion was closed by the nominator. Super Rugby is the southern hemisphere equivalent of the Heineken Cup, and the top players from New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa all play in this competition (those three countries are ranked top three in the world at the moment). As for rugby league; the National Rugby League and Super League are the only true professional rugby league competitions in the world, and probably can't be separated in terms of the "top" one. Regarding the argument that there are too many sports ITN posts, I'd argue there is too low a turnover of posts, which isn't solved by culling events from ITN/R. - Shudde ^talk 10:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Add proposal: Athletics - Breaking of 100m world record

Event: The breaking of the 100 meters world record for either men or women at any event. Must meet IAAF criteria (e.g. in relation to wind-assistance)

Recurrence: Rare. See Men's 100 metres world record progression and Women's 100 metres world record progression.

Rationale: As per 100 metres, the holder of the record is often referred to as the fastest man/woman in the world. Recording of these records is an essential part of any encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia's ability to change rapidly to reflect such events is something we should showcase on the main page. A new 100-meter record represents something a pinnacle of human athletic achievement, is undoubtedly notable, and occurrences will certainly be major news. There are currently no ITN/R athletics events.

Additional comment: Many other athletics records (other distances, or field events) could be argued with similar reasoning as above. Personally, I would be quite receptive to these. However this nomination is limited (unless there is consensus otherwise) to the 100 meter records, which are the most iconic and news-generating records. From a procedural standpoint I would suggest it would be better to add this hopefully non-controversial item and then consider which other athletic records might also have sufficient notability.

Thanks --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mild support I'm okay with this, it's better than the original "world record broken" item we used to have. It certainly is the diamond event in any athletics meeting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support It is the most high-profile world record in athletics. It seems exceedingly unlikely that the women's record will be broken shortly, and Bolt hasn't improved his WR since 2009. It is certainly rare enough to be notable. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. If it's so rare, I don't think it needs to be a recurring event; it will likely get posted if and when it happens. The recurring event list should be for events that are, well, recurring on a (generally) regular basis. There is also a physical limit to this statistic; we are likely at the point where it will get broken by miniscule fractions of a second; it isn't earth shattering if someone runs the 100m in 9.86 rather than 9.87. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Too narrow - we don't need ITN/R for an event that could easily not happen in the next 20 years. The item should either be broad (like the old WR item), but well defined (unlike the old item), or each WR should be debated. Personally, I am fine with the latter - ITN/R isn't meant to list everything we carry, but rather (mostly) predictable events that happen annually or biannually or whatever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Low controversy ITN/R items

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

---

It has been noted that a community decision on many ITN/R items either never occurred or is unavailable. As a first step to redressing this, I have listed below ITN/R items that I suspect are wholly uncontroversial. Please review this short list and confirm or contest these selections. Hopefully, once this discussion is concluded we will be able to cite it to show community approval for a reasonable proportion of the list, thus lowering the workload for any systematic review:

A list of (hopefully) uncontroversial ITN/R items

Awards

• All Nobel Prizes including the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
• The Fields Medal
• Any Millennium Prize solutions
• Academy Awards

International Politics

• United Nations Security Council elections

Sports

• World Series baseball
• NBA Finals
• Cricket World Cup
• Tour de France
• Superbowl
• FIFA World Cup
• UEFA European Football Championship
• Rugby World Cup
• Formula One championship (drivers)
• The four tennis opens.
• Opening and closing ceremonies of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games.
• Opening of the Summer Paralympic Games.

This list is designed to be extremely conservative. Please don't take an omission from this as any form of slight, it's simply that I could conceive of someone objecting to its listing. There may well be scope for a second tranche that is a little more daring, but I thought this was an OK start. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the main reason this activity needs to be conducted is that certain editors have started saying "where was this discussed before it was voted into ITN/R?" Reasonable question. The first ITN/R post is here and demonstrates that around 30 "recurring" items were "added" without consensus. Those items will always draw attention from the aforementioned type of editor, so my opinion would be to, at the very least, deal with those first. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm really not sure about Millennium Prizes. I'm not sure if the technology prizes are well-known enough to be entirely and always uncontroversial as ITNR. The maths prizes are likely always to be ITN-worthy in some sense. But, considering the example of the Poincaré conjecture, I think the fact that this was solved dwarfs in significance the fact that there was a cash prize attached (i.e. our blurb would be "Poincaré conjecture proven", rather than "Man wins prize"). Formerip (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Seems sensible. I've striken it above. The ITN/R item should probably be reworded to address the issue you raise. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Support all. In addition to these, any items added by discussions following the decommisioning discussion could be excluded from (or done at the end of) the review. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support the list as it is currently. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support This list. I'd have added maybe one or two more likely uncontroversial ones, but we can do a second list of those, rather than add to a list after voting has begun. Consider mine "support but reserve the right to start a similar vote on a new set of items not listed above". --Jayron32 20:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I would have been less conservative, but that's no reason to object. We can always have a second broad round like Jayron says... Someone should start Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items/draft rewrite (or similar) to add items as they are approved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support This seems to be most of the really obvious ones. Perhaps after this we can do the rest of the items in the list linked to by TRM, since they were added without demonstrable consensus and therefore there is a particular need for them to be reviewed. Neljack (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support these all seem obvious, which ITNR items should be. I would add the Stanley Cup Finals and four golf majors as well. And to be honest if that were the extent of ITNR, I'd be cool with it. Hot Stop 03:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think we'll probably come up with a second list after this one closes, but it's probably a good idea to not change the list after voting has started... --Jayron32 03:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment suggest dropping the Fields Medal from this list. I don't doubt the prestige of the award, but like the Millennium Prize, I don't know that it's well known enough to be uncontroversial. --IP98 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Also, I'm fine with this list as a starting point, but it shouldn't be implemented until there are clear guidelines for having an item added or removed later. --IP98 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Including retaining the Fields Medal. I think its primacy is so clear that it should stay in. I'd also support Hot Stop's proposals of the Stanley Cup and the Golf majors. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also Support retaining the Fields Medal. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Any update here? Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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