Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

Link to draft revised list

Per the suggestion in the closed discussion above I have placed the events that have been discussed and passed so far onto this page. I still feel new with how things work here so feel free to change what I have done, move it, etc. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is the aim to change the scope/remit of ITN/R, or to simply make sure all items are "accountable" to a discussion? If the latter, there are a fair few items which are on the current list with citations for community consensus (e.g. the Sumo item). LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The biggest aim is indeed to make sure all items have a discussion where they obtained consensus for inclusion, something which doesn't exist for all items now(or it may have changed). If there are items that had consensus or are otherwise not controversial, they can be proposed much like the above "non-controversial" discussions above. The goal is to create a new list that will replace the current one once said current one has been reviewed. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Cool. We could do an "items with recent consenus" list once the discussion above has concluded. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• This is a good idea. I added a section for references so people who are wondering "why is Item X on this list" can look back on past discussions. Hot Stop 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Emmy Award (Best Comedy and Best Drama)

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.

---

As witnessed at WP:ITN/C recently (link), there has been reasonably strong opposition to the Emmy Awards (strictly I suppose this should be Primetime Emmy Awards) being in ITN/R. This is just a formalisation of that opinion. Please express opinions and arguments below. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this is really a discussion as to whether the awards should be added to ITNR. There never was a prior discussion adding them, and if consensus fails here the default option is to remove the Emmy's. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been at least three years to object to its presence here; it would seem that it was accepted by default and this should be a discussion to remove it(which does indeed seem to be the consensus so far). 331dot (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, 331dot, that's ridiculous. Try telling a bank that's been making overpayments in you favor that since they have been doing it for three years they have to continue doing it in perpetuity. The ITNR guidelines themselves say it is set up for items of demonstrated consensus. The only thing that's been demonstrated here is that admins are fully willing to do whatever they like regardless of the facts. Thefact is there never has been consensus, and it doesn't look like there is now. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - As noted in that discussion, television arts are woefully underrepresented at ITN/R compared to film and music. Yes, television tends to be more national than film or music, but its not hard to argue how much both US and UK primetime television are propagated around the world. (and remember, things like the Oscars and Grammys are US-centric, just like the Emmys) Hence, I support having the Emmy Primetimes (Comedy and Drama), as well as the BAFTA Television (most likely, Comedy and Drama like the Emmys) as ITN/R, as well as any other national television award where shows of that countries have wide international viewership, though off the top of my head, I don't know of any more. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per Masem; top award in television; ceremony is followed by millions who might come here looking for information on winners and/or nominees. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I would not object to simply listing the occurrence of the ceremony and not specific awards, if there is disagreement as to which awards should be in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep a definite keep and i disagree that there was strong opposition. If anything there was quite a bit of support for it. And also per Masem TV is ridiculously under represented on ITN. This should stay in ITN/R -- Ashish-g55 17:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite a bit of opposition too, for an ITN/R. As for under-representation, any item can be nominated, including television articles. It doesn't need to be on ITN/R, and what we've seen here is an example of the lazy "support" votes of many who don't actually look at or improve the article to the extent that it's listed, despite being ITN/R. In fact, it's quite possible that having it at ITN/R is doing it no favours since many drive-by supporters just say "support per ITN/R" and move on, just like this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement that one must add something to an article in order to cast a valid opinion on a nomination. Just because people do not do so does not make them 'lazy'. And if you have evidence that people giving their views do not read the articles nominated, then call them out on it, but don't generalize and assume people do it. Instead of criticizing 'drive by supporters' why not encourage them to remain? Many of them might not realize that ITNR nominations don't require support, only a review of article quality. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Most of the opposition was "This was just added to ITN/R without discussion", while the other factor was the nationalistic aspect of the Emmys. We can solve the first right now in this discussion, and we're debating on the second if the Emmys (and BAFTAs and any other TV awards someone wants to throw out there) have appropriate international interest. I know for a fact that Americian audience do pay attention to BAFTAs. (A counter example would be that while Canada has its own set of national television awards, they rarely get coverage in the US even). --MASEM (t) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • (e/c) You're missing the point. If an article is ITN/R, and someone drives by and says "support", they should at least have the integrity to check that the update is adequate (and I'm not referring to 3/5 update) and in keeping with the article. Most don't, and in fact I see far too many "Support" votes with no explanation; this is explicitly discouraged by the ITN instructions. And yes, you make one useful point that many don't realise that all articles at ITN/C need to be updated, not just those at ITN/R. Those votes should be discounted, but as I said, ITN/R currently seems to actively harm these articles' chances of main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Drive by ITN/R "keeps" happen all the time, so that's an argument for removing ITN/R or rejecting !votes that don't examine the article, but not against this particular item on ITN/R. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Your comment speaks for itself, thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
          • It does- your point does not have to do with the merits of this item's presence on ITNR. If you oppose the existence of ITNR, then propose its removal (which has been tried and failed); If you have evidence that those !voting on nominations have not read the article, then point that out. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Remove. This fits squarely with domestic news. The Oscars generate a huge amount of interest around the world and give awards to productions that people around the world consume in large numbers. The Emmies are just not the same. From a UK perspective, one of the shows that would have been mentioned in this year's blurb is broadcast on a channel called Sky 1, which has a 0.8% viewing share [1], and the other is only available via Netflix. It just wouldn't have meant much as a story to people outside the US. Formerip (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I can argue that many of the sporting event news doesn't garner nearly the same international interest as the Emmys and they should be removed too, but that's not what is being asked nor would I call for that. I agree we can't be too ingrained on ITN/R topics that only extend to a nation's borders and no farther, but at the same time, we can't expect every ITN/R to have worldwide consequences otherwise very little would be posted. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • There's enough news of worldwide interest around to keep ITN going. If there are sporting events on the ITNR list that are only of interest in their home countries then then, you know, OTHERSTUFF, nominate them for removal. But this doesn't apply to things we regularly post like the NBA or the Premier League - there's a difference between domestic sport (OK) and sport which only one country is interested in (not OK, IMO). Formerip (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      • And the point is that the interest in the Emmys are not just limited to just the US. BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, Indian Express, etc. That's about the same amount of range and coverage things like the Grammys and Oscars get. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure, but range and coverage is a different matter to profile and interest. The Oscars are usually broadcast live in the UK (even though they are on pretty late) and will often make the front pages. No-one ever has a discussion about what they think will win an Emmy. Formerip (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

          This isn't live in the UK? On any channel? –HTD 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

          • A non-argument for being on ITN/R. The topic is covered internationally, maybe not with the immediacy of a live broadcast, but appearing in the next day's papers is reasonable enough for an event that otherwise would be late night/early morning for most of the rest of the world. I don't disagree the Oscars have a wider influence, but that's not reason to ignore the Emmys. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
            • It was you that was comparing news coverage to the Oscars. I'm just pointing out that there is no real comparison. It's possible to find widespread global coverage of all sorts of news, but that's no real indication of how much global interest there is in the story. Formerip (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Because the question was begged "is there international interest" and the answer is clearly yes. Right, you can probably find international cover of minor national events if you look hard enough, but finding those sources I used as an example was a one stop shop at Gnews, showing the topic is nowhere near obscure. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
                • The question isn't really whether there is international interest, it's whether there is much. I don't think there's enough. Here, this is a minor entertainment story and basically foreign news. There might be more interest in a year with more British winners or an actress in a dress that will sell newspapers. But it's exactly that sort of year-on-year variability that means this should be considered on a year-on-year basis. Formerip (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Remove not posted this year, no evidence of why it was on the list to start with, very weak article year-on-year, perhaps to some people this is the "television Oscar" but it doesn't live up to that, as Formerip says, it's hardly groundbreaking outside the US. Simply put, if this is really notable enough for the main page, let's see how it goes next year not being an ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Adequate update is not a criteria for inclusion in ITN/R. Its a criteria for ITN. Most US TV shows (if not all) have atleast some worldwide audience and Emmy are the awards for them which also gives them worldwide attention. It may not be at Oscars level but, given the fact that TV basically does not get represented on ITN, this should remain on ITN/R -- Ashish-g55 18:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

On what do you base the assertion "perhaps to some people this is the "television Oscar" but it doesn't live up to that"; that's just an opinion and an IDONTLIKEIT without evidence. The Emmys get much attention and news coverage, and not just in the US. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Remove rewards for American television shows is to narrow and shallow a category to deserve automatic listing. It's not like the Oscars, which have international cachet and a narrower focus on actual top industry leaders. The awards can always still be nominated and stand on their own strength if it's merited. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that why international news outlets cover them?(such as the ones Masem linked to above) Because it's too narrow a subject? 331dot (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the Emmys are open to TV shows shown in America, rather than just American TV shows (and British shows, at least, have had some success there). In contrast the BAFTAS are (apart from the international award) limited to British shows. 138.38.73.184 (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Remove from ITNR. Let it be treated like any other planned event and come to nomination to gauge it's worth; article's as well as the blurb's. Not a global phenomenon to have automatic listing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

On what do you base that claim(not a global 'phenomenon')? 331dot (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

On basis of what i see in the part of globe that i live in. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not being global enough is not a valid point for removal from ITN/R as that is not a criteria even for ITN (read the "do not" of ITN/C). Judge it based on its significance in its field... which in this case is pretty high for the field of Television. If you can refute that then we have more of a valid reason -- Ashish-g55 13:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Its nothing in Indian television. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't hear anything about the sport of cricket in my part of the world, but several Cricket tournaments are ITNR (including one specific to India) as it is popular in other parts of the world. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two specifics about Indian cricket over there; IPL and Indo-Pak match. And you said it right; that it is popular in other parts of the world. Show us how Emmy is popular similarly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Masem already linked to a few news stories around the world above; here's a few more: The Guardian (UK), Le Monde (France) News.com.au (Australia) CBC (Canada), Times of India, China Daily, Xinhua (China again), Channel 24 (South Africa); do I need to keep going? This isn't just a US news item and is followed all over the world. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Those links demonstrate only that there is not an impermeable barrier around the United States preventing its news from being reported on abroad. Formerip (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Those news outlets do not post stories just for the sake of doing so, they do it because they think their readers want to know about them- hence, they are followed around the world. It clearly is not just a "domestic news" story as you claim. I'm still waiting for some evidence (not necessarily from you) supporting the claim this is not the top-tier television award, as is also claimed above. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You cannot base that the awards are followed around the world necessarily from these news reports. The Australian newspaper reported it because the Australian director Jane Campion did not win for her show. & the Indian newspaper reported because Tina Fey's costume malfunctioned. Also i don't know how to do it, but one must judge the quantum of news from print editions only and not electronic one. The print one is the real one where material really related to reader's is printed. In e-version its mostly copy-paste-ry and getting more hits in Google that counts and is just for the sake of covering global stuff. For example; its absolutely wrong to conclude that Indians care about Khloé and Lamar's wedding situation because Times of India, the largest selling newspaper has written about it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The same logic would prompt us to remove several of the sporting events listed that only have national/regional participation (NFL , NBA, cricket tourneys, etc.); that is, for example, the NYTimes covers championship cricket events but in the same light that these international papers covered the Emmys. No one is asking for that. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

OSE! You can go and start discussions to remove other listings as well and i will support on some of those. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion discusson, we're talking what goes on the front page, and in this case, OSE is a very valid augment to avoid bias. I would be very disillusioned to think that I could nominate the Super Bowl ITN/R for removal from here and expect it to happen, and I dare not, but the point is that the "interest" in the Super Bowl is nearly equivalent for the Emmys, and to say that the Emmys don't have enough interest for an ITN/R while the Super Bowl does is, frankly, a BS argument. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep equivalent of other highest-level awards for different media (Grammy, Oscar, Tony, etc.). --Jayron32 14:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • [citation needed] to equate this to an Oscar. Seems like an inflated view.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how you got "equate this to an oscar" out of what Jayorn said.. are there any other television awards that are considered of higher level than Emmy's? -- Ashish-g55 16:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I mis-read the bit where he said "equivalent of other highest-level awards for different media (Grammy, Oscar....)". And one could argue BAFTAs, but that's irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

BAFTAs are probably just as important to the television industry as the Emmys. The question is, are there any higher awards that that? The next few awards for television that I'm aware of, like the Golden Globes, the People's Choice Awards, or things like the MTV Awards, are definitely mostly of interest in the national level and typically aren't considered as with much merit as the Emmys. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What Masem said. Are there television awards that generate more press than the Emmys? If so, we should replace the Emmys with those. If there are not, then we should keep it.--Jayron32 18:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Yes, the BAFTAs generate more than the Emmys. Done deal. Anyway, once again it's a little bit of the systemic bias kicking us in the ass, the US pwns the world when it comes to television awards. I now see why so many non-US contributors are leaving the project. Anyway, I procedurally nominated this ITN/R as it was wholesale rejected at ITN/C for being utter tripe, it didn't get posted, maybe that says something. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-U.S. contributors leave the project because U.S. contributors improve articles they have knowledge and interest in? Tell me more about this theory of yours. It intrigues me that people leave because other people are interested in things that they know about. I want to know more about this. --Jayron32 00:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, non-US contributors leave because there's the inexorable tide of USA-USA-USAism that makes many feel that daring to suggest we should be more global is a bridge too far. You actually know that, it's just time you admitted it to yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the forum to fight the systemic bias battle. Even if it was, an affirmative action program to exclude US content only shifts the problem, it doesn't solve it. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never done any of that in my life. You must have me confused with a different person. --Jayron32 14:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• This proposal is doomed to fail. This should be a "retention proposal", and with the stipulation that only a "consensus keep" would have it retained; "no consensus" or "consensus remove" means it is removed. In this case, "consensus keep" and "no consensus" would have this retained, while only a clear "consensus remove" removes this. –HTD 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not correct. There's no real difference between a retain vote and a remove vote. In the past, removal discussions ending in no consensus have meant the removal of the item from the list, in the absence of a prior consensus. Formerip (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is probably true on more recent discussions. Which is nice to see. –HTD 15:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is sad and unfortunate since every single item on this list could eventually be stricken through attrition by failing to reach a "keep consensus". On AFD no consensus is not delete, why should this be different? Those whom are vocal opponents to the existence on ITN/R will certainly champion the "no consensus == delete" refrain, but that's not what Wikipedia does. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Remove The difference between this and the Academy Awards or the (film) BAFTAs is that they are open to films from all countries, whereas this is limited to TV programmes from one country. If we are to include this, then we should also include not only the TV BAFTAs, but television awards from other countries such as India, France, Mexico, Brazil and Germany. Neljack (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Several of the sports tournaments or championships listed on ITNR are also limited to one country. In this case, the Emmys get more attention than ceremonies in other countries, much as some of those single-country tournaments get attention in other countries. There is no worldwide TV awards ceremony, but the involvement of top Hollywood actors (many of whom are known worldwide) in the Emmys raises its profile above other similar ceremonies in other nations. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the Emmys get more attention than, for instance, the (TV) Baftas? If so, please present that evidence and I will certainly consider it. Neljack (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I only know that media around the world had stories about it, which news outlets wouldn't do if they didn't think there readers/viewers weren't interested in the subject or it was unimportant. This being In the news that matters as much as any other criteria that could be found. I've never heard of the "baftas" until you just mentioned them- which I realize means little here- but we mention their awards in film in addition to the Oscars(and Canadian and German awards). If you're saying they are equivalent to the Emmys- and I apologize if that isn't you're point- then I would be open to listing those here as well. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll further point out that if this is removed, television will have no listing on ITNR, while we list more obscure (relative to TV) events/awards such as the Sakharov Prize, Man Booker Prize, Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom (a one-country designation), and others. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that at least one television award has to be there on ITNR? We don't have any for Kabaddi World Cup. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Television is a recognized major art media around the globe, like film, books, poetry, and music, all which we've included top-tier honors as ITN/R. It makes no sense to shun it simply because the major awards are generally based on national productions, particularly as the line of what is national broadcast is weakened with online streaming. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, "kabbadi" does not have the reach of television. US programs are broadcast all over the world. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

By my count, kabaddi and sepak takraw should easily pwn any of the Gaelic sports that is/was listed at ITNR by interest and number of followers and players. –HTD 18:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - This is Wikipedia-en. Emmys are the top TV awards show in English. It's a top story in the news each year. It should be ITN/R if we have to have this list. No I don't watch it, or much TV at all. Jusdafax 00:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We are here to be a global encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Also what is the basis for saying that the Emmys are bigger than the (TV) BAFTAs? Neljack (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Being a global encyclopedia doesn't mean we ignore our audience and not post stories about one area they might be interested in, which is essentially the de facto global awards ceremony. If you're saying the BAFTAs are equivalent to the Emmys, that would seem to be an argument for including them in ITNR, not excluding the Emmys. If we can have the Poet Laureate of the UK we can have the Emmys and/or BAFTAs(which don't seem to get a great deal of attention in the US). 331dot (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What he said. You don't make Wikipedia better by intentionally excluding good, quality content merely because it is from a part of the world you don't want to include. The way to make Wikipedia better is to, yourself, improve content about parts of the world you feel are underrepresented. That's how Wikipedia becomes more global, not by deliberate exclusion, but by intentional inclusion. --Jayron32 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

on that note i would probably support putting BAFTA on ITNR as well instead of removing Emmys -- Ashish-g55 14:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just like I said years ago, this gives us disproportionate coverage on US and UK topics to the complete and utter ignorance of other topics elsewhere. It's probably interesting to note that there should have been more people that had seen a season of a TV show like Meteor Garden, than say a season of EastEnders. –HTD 15:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We should be considering both the geography and the field, not just geography. While adding the Emmys may further disproportionate ITN/R towards US/UK topics, it is also adding to a major field (television arts) that is woefully underrepresented at ITN in general.--MASEM (t) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I await the nomination of topics not presently covered well or from underrepresented areas; the lack of such topics is not a reason to exclude any topic. Instead of arguing against topics for that reason, you should be nominating and advocating for topics you believe should be present. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is ITNR should have very clear consensus; in theory, the reason why it is listed here is because everyone agrees that it should breeze through ITN/C discussions every time it is nominated. For example, if the Emmys are going to be opposed every time it is nominated, how sure are we that the BAFTAs and the Asian Television Awards aren't? Would it be ironic if the latter two breeze through while the former does not? –HTD 16:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Total or near unanimity is not required for ITNR; there will always be opposition to virtually any event listed. I don't see the Asian Television Awards up for consideration for inclusion in ITNR; I would be happy to consider it. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "Total or near unanimity" but just any consensus would be easily judged upon by the admin; discounting of course the IDONTLIKEIT opposes. –HTD 18:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm afraid that Jayron32 misunderstands my position. My comment was merely a response to Jusdafax's arguments that (1) "[t]his is Wikipedia-en" (implying, I presume, that preference should be given to items from English-speaking countries); and (2) that the "Emmys are the top TV awards show in English". I have no desire to "exclud[e] good, quality content merely because it is from a part of the world [I] don't want to include." I certainly do believe we should include content from the US and have no prejudice against US items. I support removing the Emmys because I don't think that entertainment or cultural awards limiting to one country should generally be included (I would support removing the UK Poet Laureate too), and if we did we would end up having to include too many TV awards. 331dot says that they are "essentially the de facto global awards ceremony", which is precisely where I disagree. The Academy Awards are a de facto global awards ceremony - they are open to films from all countries, and while many other countries have film awards the Oscars are regarded as the most important worldwide. The Emmys, in contrast, are only open to TV programmes from one country (despite the fact that TV is big worldwide), so I am mystified as to how it can be considered "the de facto global awards ceremony." I suggest that if you ask people from Britain, India, France, Germany, Japan etc whether they regard the Emmys as "the de facto global awards ceremony" for TV, you will find that it does not have the status you suggest. Neljack (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  See, I take the opposite position: I would rather we did open up ITN more, and placed a much greater emphasis on article quality when making decisions. I would be totally in favor of posting articles on, say Indian Television Awards if we had a good article about them. ITN should be "Current events that we have really good articles about" and not "stuff that people who see themselves the gatekeepers of elitism felt was worthwhile for us to post here". --Jayron32 02:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If an objection to an event being from a single country isn't a valid objection for a regular nomination, I don't think it should be here, either. Even the Super Bowl only has to do with a single country (only US teams in the US) so should that be removed, too? 331dot (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with including events from a single country if they are of sufficient international interest - as the Super Bowl is. I don't think the Emmys are of the same of level of international interest. Neljack (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is why you can read about them in most countries on the globe........as I linked to above. I can't say the same about other similar ceremonies, at least from what I have seen. So television gets no mention on ITNR despite being as prominent an art form as film or novels? I'll also second what Jayron said above. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, if we're talking about interest outside the U.S. (and Canada), the Emmys would easily pwn the Super Bowl. U.S. TV shows are everywhere; for example, channels that air these shows would cite the Emmys in their promos. Meanwhile, the NFL isn't that watched elsewhere. The global audience for the Super Bowl must be in the 90% for the U.S. –HTD 14:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Super Bowl is widely reported upon by media around the world; the Emmys are not to the same extent. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is probably easy to say that both are not that "widely reported upon by media around the world", with the Emmys having more coverage outside the U.S. vs. the Super Bowl. –HTD 08:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But they are reported on around the world nevertheless. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So are lots of things. That doesn't mean post them all. Neljack (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Lots of things" are not viewed by millions of people around the world such as television programs(even just American ones). 331dot (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

remove per §§Dharmadhyaksha(Lihaas (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

• Keep THese are the top English language TV awards (or at the very least on par with the BAFTAs; most of the shows honored have a global audience.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, the Emmy is the Oscar of the television, refer to EGOT. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:21, 7 November 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: Filmfare Awards (Filmfare Award for Best Film)

Filmfares, the popular choice Bollywood awards of India are not really much of hype in India itself. Are they covered in news? Yes! Are they covered on front page of newspapers? No; unless its a Page 3 publication. Are they covered throughout India? No! Many states in India don't even promote Bollywood films over their own regional film industries. Also we must note that since its addition in the list post discussion Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_3#Awards_2 of March 2011, the awards have been presented twice; in 2012 and 2013. And on none of the instances the articles have been displayed on main page. I would hence propose removal of this from ITNR list. If at all the event turns out to be extraordinarily different and gets news-worthy, (eg. if 70% awards are bagged by a certain film) we can still present the article after following the normal ITN procedure. But it hardly deserves to get a default space. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal. Dharmadhyaksha makes a good case; it makes sense to me. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Filmfare awards are given by a private organization in India. The official award in cinema from Indian government is National Film Awards. However, as of now both of them do not deserve any place on the first page. Usually NFA are talked less as the recipients are scattered across the country and are covered in the regional media based on the award winners. It gets bigger coverage only when bollywood wins any award. FF should be definitely taken down as it does not represent the Indian cinema. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• I find Dharmadhyaksha's arguments convincing but I'd like to see more input, particularly from people who know Indian cinema. These are the top awards for Indian cinema (that's what's stated in the article) and it's important to feature cinema events outside the US/UK etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple of further points--I don't think that the fact that the awards are not covered throughout India necessarily disqualifies them. India is a large and very diverse country. India has many languages so it's logical that there are regional film industries catering to non-Hindi-speakers. We know that Bollywood is the largest film industry in the world by certain measures, even if there are competing regional film industries in other Indian states. Also, the lack of on-wiki activity should not be presented as evidence that the awards are not suitably notable. This is most likely Systemic bias. So without further discussion, my !vote is Oppose removal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as a point of information only, the author of this proposal and one of its supporters are both from India, so I think any systemic bias issue is minimal here(as opposed to if the author was from the US or Europe). 331dot (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

By Systemic bias I'm referring to the argument that the Filmfare awards haven't been nominated since they were added to ITNR. That reflects a lack of on-wiki activity, not a lack of notability. It's well established that topics outside the English speaking world get less coverage on Wikipedia. I do appreciate that two editors in this discussion are from India but I'd like to see a bit more input from others--it's possible that other people familiar with Indian cinema have a very different point of view.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Though I am open to further information, my inclination is to oppose this per Johnsemlak. I have seen the Filmfare Awards described as the Indian equivalent of the Oscars. They certainly get lots of coverage, even if not in all parts of India (which is, as Johnsemlak points out, a very large and diverse country). Neljack (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Apart from Japanese baseball (which is a bit of an oddity in the ITNR list), this is the only national event from a country that is not primarily English-speaking that is ITNR. That either means we should get rid of it for the sake of consistency or keep it in the name of countering bias. Both of those options would make sense to me. Formerip (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Time Man of teh Year

Should we make this an ITNR event? Its been aropund awhile and is broadly talked about(Lihaas (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)).

I'd like to see how it does in a regular nomination before even considering it for ITNR. I'm not yet entirely convinced it would be good for that even- a person selected by a group of magazine editors. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final (redux)

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.

---

Following the unsuccessful nomination of the 2014 Winter Olympics ice hockey final at WP:ITN/C, 331dot has indicated that he would like to see a proposal to remove this item from ITN/R. It seems only reasonable to follow that up, so here we are. Useful background may include a previous discussion which was never closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is normally one of the clear highlights of the Winter Olympics, and 0.25 items per year is 4 times less than what Gaelic football has. Nergaal (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per my already stated reasons. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Remove as this will always coincide with the end of the Winter Olympics, we will always have issues to explain to the vast majority of people not interested why one individual sport's gold medal game should share the blurb or share ITN with the closing ceremony. "Clear highlight" is 100% point-of-view, personal opinion. I couldn't care less who was in the ice hockey, nor could the vast majority of those reading Wikipedia, many more would be interested in downhill ski-ing or figure skating or skeleton or curling or biathlon. Moreover, the fact that some have voted to oppose it this year because of who was competing for it makes it perfect candidate for ITN/C, not ITN/R, if "who's in it" matters. Also, this should have been removed in the previous discussion where a clear consensus was not acted upon. But we are where we are. One note, could those "opposing" the removal please demonstrate the consensus which was formed to actually include it at ITN/R? It would be helpful to know that it wasn't just added by one user some years ago because "it seemed like a good idea"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not caring about something is not a reason to oppose it; there are people who don't care about US Presidential elections or UK elections. Looking at the Recurring items history, this has been on the list since it was created, there has been 6 years to remove it without it happening. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Found this discussion from 2010. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• So there's been no consensus to include it at all, as I suspected. Not caring about it enough as a community to form a genuine consensus to include it is a perfect reason to remove it. Six years to remove it has finally come home to roost, if an ITN/R has massive opposition at ITN/C, you should be able to find your answer. The unfortunate thing is that many of those who frequent ITN/C do not frequent ITN/R, as such we'll usually end in stalemate and have a pointless ITN/R that'll never be posted because it's heavily opposed at ITN/C. In fact, why not just add the curling final, the women's ice hockey final, the double luge, to ITN/R? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The ice hockey result was posted in 2010 as well. This item could have been removed from the list after it was created(it was not), it could have been removed in 2010(it was not), it could have been removed after the last discussion(it was not). If it is now, I respect that, but it seems until now to have been accepted by default. If you want to draw more attention to the discussion, I think there are means for you to do so. If you have an actual proposal to add the events you mention, I'd be happy to explain why I wouldn't support adding them, but I won't tie up space here doing so. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's just a symptom of how badly thought out ITN/R has been over the years and the tacit acceptance of a couple of editor's ideas becoming written in stone. This proposal will fail, the good news being we'll have to wait until 2018 before we have to reject it all over again, and it's not worth the bytes being generated. What would be the decent thing would be to remove it entirely from ITNR and allow ITNC to determine whether it's worth being included, particularly, as I've noted, as some voters believe that ITNR should actually depend on who's in the final. Best laugh I've had all day. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support for removal, although I'm not sure why we need to have this discussion in triplicate. No Olympic event should be singled out as ITNR for any reason. Olympic gold is undoubtedly a big deal within the world of ice hockey, but that doesn't not make it unique as an Olympic event. And, although I'm willing not to disagree that it is a big deal for North America, that's the opposite of a good reason for making it ITNR. It certainly doesn't have an especially high profile where I live, compared to, say, curling or skeleton. I guess it mainly depends on where your home country has a shot at a medal. Formerip (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. This is clearly the the effective world championship in Ice Hockey, and if it were a separate event going on at the same time it would be ITNR without question. It should be ITNR and should be posted this year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not according a strong consensus against its posting. Vive la revolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Some of the oppose rationales are patently ridiculous, such as the one you cited above that the ITNR status should depend on who makes the final.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you need to re-read the discussion. It was a supporter who said it shouldn't be posted this year because of the finalists. That's how stupid this is. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah, fair point. Poor rationale regardless.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Removal As i stated in ITNC. Regardless of Canada winning... As far as ice hockey goes olympics final is the most watched and most popular game. Much more so that Stanley cup final. It is an international event carrying a lot significance (even if you only count that significance for Canada). An event watched by upwards of 80% population of a country should not just be ignored given the amount of sports stuff we post on ITN. I would rather not see any of the IIFH world championships and only have one olympics final for ice hockey -- Ashish-g55 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. But franky, we might as well just MFD this page if people at ITN/C won't respect it. Resolute 15:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Respect comes to those who deserve it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Get off your high horse, Rambling Man. Resolute 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That's The Rambling Man to you ...lute. Respecting ITN/R items which have never had an active consensus is a part of the ongoing evolution of ITN/R, which has needed a shake-up for some years. Sadly, this item is just one of a number of news items that a couple of blokes thought would be cool to include six years ago, but here we are, with the item being massively rejected at ITN/C. Speaks volumes, no need for it to be personal, and hey, we can do this all again in 2018 should we still be fortunate enough to be here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I guess it isn't British or American enough for most of you, so it should be removed, eh? "Massively rejected" in a remarkably short discussion, yet was beginning to equalize after the hasty withdrawl. And, of course, removing this from ITN/R is similarly "massively rejected" at this point as well. So where does that leave us? Resolute 16:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
          • As I said, it leaves us waiting to have this pointless discussion once again in 2018. Woo! Perhaps it'll be USA v Russia then and we can all get excited about it and claim it to be somehow more important than Sweden v Canada. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. This event may well be more important than the the world championships, but so what. Olympic alpine skiing is the most important alpine skiing and Olympic skeleton is the most important skeleton. Why should we single out one event? Here the Premier Olympic Event™ is either the men's cross-country skiing 4 × 10 km relay or the 5 mile, but I personally prefer biathlon. The Ice Hockey final is only broadcast on the main channel as it is the only thing happening, if it had coincided with e.g. any cross-country skiing, alpine skiing or biathlon event it would be relegated to a secondary channel.
  This highlights the problem; which events matter most is largely based on your geographical location, with modifications based on personal taste and unforeseen medal chances. The logical choice is to post blurbs for the ceremonies and for rarer news like Bjørndalen's record. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment just for the sake of clarity, the original ITN/C discussion has been re-opened. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal There is no justification for having this as the one Olympic event that is singled out for special mention. Surely nobody can seriously contend that it is the most internationally popular Olympic event - that would be the 100m sprints. So then the argument seems to be that the best men's ice hockey players only play in the Olympics and not the world champs, whereas in other major events the top athletes compete in both the world champs and the Olympics. However, that argument would only make sense if we posted the events in question at the world championships. But you will search in vain for when we have posted the world champions in the 100m sprints, the 100m freestyle, downhill skiing, etc. The fact that the best players in men's ice hockey don't play in the world champs, while the best sprinters complete in both the world champions and the Olympics, can hardly be an argument for posting both the Olympics and the world champs in ice hockey but the 100m sprints in neither. If anything, it would support posting the 100m sprints (and, by similar reasoning, the downhill skiing, the 100m freestyle, etc) in both the Olympics and the world champs, and the men's ice hockey only in the Olympics. But nobody seems to be arguing for that, which isn't surprising since it would involve a big increase in the number of sporting events that we post. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment There is compelling rationale for both sides. On one hand, this is certainly one of the premier events of International Hockey, certainly on par with the Stanley Cup and equivalent to the World Cup for soccer. To that extent, this would seem undoubtedly ITN/R-worthy. But on the other hand, having the timing of the gold medal match always coinciding with the end of the Winter Games and the closing ceremonies creates a logistical quagmire that would require multiple Olympic-themed blurbs appearing at the same time. That would be a bit much since the aim of ITN is to "...reflect recent or current events of wide interest" and not just the biggest sports news of the day. In the end, we have to prioritize and I think it would be a difficult argument to make that the gold medal final of a single event is more important than the closing ceremonies of the entire games. So which blurb do you go with? The hockey game or the closing ceremonies? In the end, ITN/R shouldn't trump common sense or the greater goals of ITN to appeal to a wide-interest base and not just one category of interest (such as sports fans). Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. I seriously don't get what the big deal is about having it listed. It's the premier event in all of hockey. Shall we remove the FIFA World Cup too? Hot Stop 02:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the FIFA World Cup is not part of the Olympics, so no. Neljack (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that the ice hockey tournament is equivalent to the FIFA Cup in terms of Hockey; the world championships of ice hockey do not have the stature that the Olympic tournament does. (Ask an average sports fan to name the last world champion and ask someone to name who won the Gold medal) Interestingly the world ice hockey championship was actually part of the Olympics for many years. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, as part of its existence at itn/r was for the reason that it is the iihf final. Clearly not the case. So it literally is just one sport picked from the Games. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In most sports the Olympics is more important than the world championships (at least that is the general perception in my country). Despite the fact that in most other sports the same athletes take part, it is clear that the attention they receive in Olympic years is somewhat to hugely increased. Furthermore, if you mess up you have to wait 4 years rather than one or to, so becoming an Olympic champion is rarer and would tend to more prestigious. (This naturally has economic consequences, the value of an Olympic champion for sponsorships often exceed that of a world champion.) 62.249.160.48 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly there's no consensus for the retention of this item so... –HTD 01:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• How's that exactly? This is a removal proposal, not a retention proposal. Even if it is, it looks about even to me. 331dot (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• ITNR is about consensus. What I see here is that there's no consensus for a removal, and no consensus to retain as well. Lists on ITNR are supposed to be "automatic postings because almost everyone would agree that it'll be posted". If there is a significant number of people who think otherwise, then it has to be removed. Well, that has been The Rambling Man's argument from the start, purging the list of all the trouble-making components that provoke long discussions. In either case, ice hockey is the most visited article among the interdependent team sports in the 2012 and 2014 Olympics:

• Men's ice hockey: 800k
• Men's football: 386k
• Men's basketball: 280k
• Women's football: 189k
• Women's ice hockey: 187k
• Men's volleyball: 181k
• Women's volleyball: 161k
• Men's field hockey: 108k
• Men's handball: 97k
• (I was going to compare this to the 2010 FIFA World Cup but it occurred in a span of two calendar months (same case for the Olympics BTW, but only a few days were affected) and some days were missing.)

• There's a reason you won't see much other events during the men's ice hockey final that your TV channel will find a reason not to show that crap: because it's one of the most popular events. The reason why the cross-country events are held on this day too is because they're a part of the closing ceremony program, and apparently the IOC loves these grind out "marathons" (oh! so manly!) as a part of the closing ceremonies. In the last 3 Winter Olympics, men's ice hockey, bobsleigh and the men's cross country skiing are on the final day of competition. If anyone argues that the reason why most people watch the Winter Olympics is due to bobsleds, I'd be waiting outside wielding a bat. #kidding –HTD 01:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Those stats clearly make the point that readers (the people we are supposed to care about) care about the hockey tournament. Just an FYI, the articles on the opening and closing ceremonies from this year's event, which were displayed prominently on the front page, drew about 200,000 views -- one fourth of what the hockey tournament received. Hot Stop 02:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• The hockey tournament had a benefit of having games during the entire run of the Olympics; the ceremonies only happened once each, even with the added benefit of being posted in the main page... –HTD 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the highest profile regular competition for national teams in a major, international sport. There ARE other such international hockey competitions, but this is clearly the most important among them. We should be posting these results for that reason. This needs to be on ITNR. --Jayron32 02:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment strikes me as a little absurd that we're arguing to keep this as ITN/R when there's been a clear demonstration at ITN/C that it should not be. We now a different audience appearing and clamouring for it to be kept (although some only want it to feature in ITN if the teams in the final are somehow more notable than this year's pairing). Looking forward to 2018! Funny old world. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I understand that the intent of most of the editors that want to post this item is to post an important (the most important?) ice hockey tournament. Normally this would be a no-brainer. In this particular case I feel that the consequence of posting it is completely overlooked: posting sends a clear implication that it is the most important Olympic event. Regardless of intent this is deeply unfortunate and should be avoided. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Every event posted has people who feel it is important and people who feel it isn't important. I get what you are saying, but there are reasons it could be considered important(it is always the last medal event and has no other events scheduled at the same time, I think). 331dot (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Essentially my point is that ice hockey is not the appropiate context to judge this item. In an Olympic context, while clearly important (e.g. in Canada and Sweden), it is not sufficiently important to be the only Olympic event we post. It is especially problematic as it is chosen based on subjective criteria. An event being part of the closing ceremony could justify a combined blurb (though I still think it is an inferior option to not highlighting any event). 62.249.160.48 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Nobody is saying that this isn't important; what we're saying is that it's not uniquely important among Olympic events, so there's no justification for posting it and no other Olympic events. Neljack (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• You may not agree with the justification, but it does exist. This event is different from other events. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal per The Rambling Man and Neljack. Enough of this. Jusdafax 11:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it's as clear cut as that; there are many who want it to remain. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. Unfortunately, regularly posting this gives the perception of systemic bias that only one of the many Olympic events are far and away more important than all of the others. The average casual reader is not an expert on ice hockey. All they will perceive is an unverified and very subjective claim that "men's hockey in the Olympics is significantly more notable than the other Olympic sports". Yes, it may be the "most popular or important" Olympic sport in your country or region, but not necessarily in every country that has participants. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No, posting this says "This the the most important international hockey tournament in the world." --Jayron32 11:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • "This is the most important international hockey tournament in the world" is a very subjective claim, and a little premature. As usual, the National Hockey League is hesitant on whether they will continue letting their players participate in future Olympics. It took them until July 2013 to decide to commit to Sochi. So what happens if/when they decline to send "the best players", and the Olympics teams then comprise of amateurs or players from other leagues? Some of these subjective arguments that "it's the most premier ice hockey tournament" will become even more subjective. At least the IIHF World Championships will always have some NHL players (from those teams eliminated from playoff contention). It's very hard to justify something here re-occurring every four years when you always have the NHL not treating it as re-occurring. Even if the NHL eventually agrees to 2018, they will always be non-committal and "re-evaluating" 2022 and beyond. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Jayron32, the point is that the Olympics is also the most important tournament for running, skiing, swimming, figure skating, etc - in fact, most Olympic sports - yet we only include ice hockey. That's why having this amounts to us saying that ice hockey is more important than any other Olympic event. Neljack (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Again, my support for removing this from ITNR is twofold: As Neljack has stated, it is unfair to single out one sport when all the other Olympics events can be considered "the most important international [Insert sport here] event in the world". And secondly, there is always this cloud hanging over the tournament: the National Hockey League is unwilling to commit long-term to interrupt its season midway and send its best players to the Olympics, and is instead always in this "re-evaluating" mode. How many rosters would have been affected if the NHL did not let its players go to Sochi? I'd say Canada, Sweden and the U.S. teams would have been affected the most -- three of the top four teams that finished the tournament. Compare that to the 2013 IIHF World Championship rosters, where there are always NHL players available, from those NHL teams that have been eliminated from Stanley Cup contention. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• On accusations of systemic bias, this entire system systematizes systemic bias, as we "cherry pick" certain things from a set, and make them "representatives" of that entire set. So the allegations of systemic bias are true, yes we do that. Here. And it's legal. This cherry picking is usually in the reasoning that "it is the most important/followed/popular event from that field", the same reasoning that's being used in the ice hockey example. For example, we'd see the UEFA Champions League instead of the AFC Champions League, the Premier League instead of the J.League, and Six Nations instead of the Asian Five Nations. We do this all the time here. In some instances though, we accommodate something from the UK (and IRELAND! Yes, Ireland! Hong Kong has more people, but sorry, not Anglophone enough due to the handover lol), so the systemic "isn't so bad". Hence, the Academy and the BAFTAs, the Tonys and the Laurence Olivier, heck even the "International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award". Yeah, we do add another one but it doesn't solve the systemic bias problem at all. –HTD 07:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong keep.
  1. Ice hockey is a highly popular sport among a significant number of nations. Yes it doesn't cover the whole world, but few sports do. There are more ice hockey players and fans than many of the sports we do have an ITNR entry for. So we should have one for ice hockey too for balance. That should include both the top club and international competitions.
  2. The Winter Olympics are the only time that the NHL teams release all their players to represent their countries. As a result, this is the top level of international ice hockey competition. The IIHF World Championships are held every year, but only feature a fraction of the world's best players (those whose NHL teams have already been eliminated). Ergo we should treat the Olympics event as more significant than the World Championships.
  3. Ice hockey is the flagship event of most Winter Olympics. The level of coverage in international media is higher than any other Winter Olympic sport. The mere fact that this competition is held as part of a larger sporting event is irrelevant. If it was separated it would still be a huge event with major interest. The historical curiosity (related to a power struggle between the IIHF and NHL) which means that there isn't a separate ice hockey tournament with top-level participation should not outweigh the significance of the event.
  4. It is the most significant Winter Olympic event. So there's no problem if we reflect that status by posting it. If people are unhappy, we can make it a separate blurb.
• For what it's worth, I'm from the UK, a country which is hardly noted as a powerhouse of ice hockey. Sorry for being late to this discussion. Modest Genius ^talk 22:26, 24 March 2014 (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.

Alpine skiing world cup

I am wondering how come we don't have it as ITNR? It seems to me that other than ice hockey, winter sports are heavily underrepresented on ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think Nergaal raises a good point. It's been posted the last four years, often with unanimous support.[2] [3] [4] [5] I agree about the under-representation of winter sports, and skiing is one of the biggest of them. So I support adding the women's and men's overall winners to ITN/R (to be posted in a single blurb). Neljack (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, the way we had it in the previous years. Naming both cup winners in a single blurb. --Tone 23:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - it has been posted the last few years with little or no opposition. No reason not to add it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Just so obvious. The traditional peak event of the snow sliding sports. Surely it's just an oversight that it wasn't already ITN/R. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Posted regularly with little opposition; it is the top level in the sport. No reason not to be ITNR I think. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)