Talk:Main Page/2006 World Cup poll

This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Do you support or oppose a permanent mention of the world cup scores on the in the news section of the main page for the duration of the world cup?

This straw poll is non-binding and non-final; it is simply to see where everyone stands, and can not be used to enforce a final decision.

Support

Support as even the least significant match holds more news value for a majority of the people in the world than any other news, it certainly qualifies as news. Furthermore, given the broad interest for the world cup, this is a good opportunity to attract some more users and editors. --Denoir 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Care to provide evidence of your claim? The BBC World News disagrees. This seems to suggest your view of the world is a bit skewed toward diversions. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:27
  - The BBC has a whole site dedicated to the World Cup. -http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/default.stm. What's your point? Jooler 07:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    - Isn't it obvious? The BBC News's main page is not flooded with sports statistics. We have pages where current statistics can go, such as the Sports Portal. Not the main page of an encyclopedia. Why not update the Sports Portal to something worth viewing, rather than trashing it in favor of the front page? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:44
      - But the BBC main page currently DOES give four links to football results, that is what I would like here. Nothing more than BBC, the same. Piet 07:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        Two of those links are related to news stories, not the football games themselves. Also, you're forgetting that BBC News is a news page, equal to one quarter of our main page. So, count up how many entries are about World Cup, and how many are about other things, and then you can figure out how much or little space should be spent on the World Cup. I count 2 out of 15 stories in the main section of BBC News (everything in the brown area, and above) referring to the World Cup. So, assuming ITN has 5 stories, that's about equal to one very short entry on ITN, which the World Cup already has: "The 2006 FIFA World Cup continues in Germany." Done and done. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 08:10
        Make that 4 out of 16, but the whole argument is specious reasoning. Following your suggestion, none of the other news stories on ITN should be there as they all have less than 4 links on BCC. --Denoir 08:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        It's not specious reasoning. In fact, it's the only solid evidence we've had so far. We'll get to the other entries in ITN once we've decided what to do about the World Cup entry, ok? One at a time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 09:00
Support. The ITN section, as its name says, is there to provide news and for a month now the major newspapers of the world will report little except the cup in their front pages, so the scores are definitely newsworthy. Loom91 07:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- BBC World News seems to be getting along fine with relatively little coverage of World Cup matches/scores. Would you care to substantiate your claim? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:25
Support - of course. It is in the news. Google News hits of 130,0000. It is not just a sporting event it is a World Wide festival lasting four weeks. Of far greater importance to millions of people people than any other and simply no comparison to the Olympics. People don't gather in their hundreds of thousands wrapped in thwir national colours and watch the Olympics on big screens in hundreds of cities throughout the world - All of the National football team pages are in the news and being constantly updated. Jooler 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. So much more than sports. See also Denoir's remark. Piet 07:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- So create a World Cup Portal, and that can be linked on the main page. What's stopping you? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 08:18
Support. It's proven that the FIFA World Cup is the biggest media-event on our planet, more people watching it than any Olympic games in modern human history. Not including recent results on the main page shows ignorance.
- BBC World News's main page says differently. Would you care to provide any evidence of your claims, or has your discussion begun and ended with a hit-and-run vote? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 08:17
  - What do you mean? They have a permanent section for it with four links, one to their main world cup page, one general story and one for each game played this day. In addition, they have a featured article with the title "World Cup panel". Would you like a screenshot? --Denoir 08:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    - And you're forgetting that BBC News's page is a news page, equal to 1/4th of our main page. There are 10 "blocks" in the top portion of BBC News's site, including the "Latest headline" at the top. 2 of those panels are about the World Cup. So, 1/5th of their main section is devoted to World Cup. Now, what is 1/5th of ITN? That's a single statement, which the World Cup already has: "The 2006 FIFA World Cup continues in Germany." Now imagine how much more space you'd have if you just created a World Cup Portal, which could be linked from the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 08:31
      - FYI the Australia - Japan game is currently in progress and the BBC have got the LIVE score prominently on the front page. Jooler 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    - As I said earlier, that is specious reasoning. Following your suggestion, none of the other news stories on ITN should be there as they all have less than 4 links on the BBC. --Denoir 08:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      - As I said above, it's not specious reasoning. In fact, it's the only solid evidence we've had so far. We'll get to the other entries in ITN once we've decided what to do about the World Cup entry, ok? One at a time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 09:02
        It sure as hell is faulty reasoning. As he says, if you are going to measure every newsstory by how many links are on the bbc and then make an arbitrary mathematical equation out of it ("Since 4 out of 16 links are on the BBC website, and our is a quarter the size that makes it a ratio of 1/4 * 1/4 = 1/16, so every 16th link should be about the world cup". I mean, WTF?) We make our own editorial judgements. We don't look to other stuff to see how "they do it", if that were the case, there'd be alot more "Deletes" at AFD. If you want the world cup off the main page, don't make some silly appeal to the BBC website, but actually argue good points. Because, as I said, the other way is just silly. Oskar 13:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      - Don't take BBC as a reasonable comparison and/or source, it contains lots of flaws as all other news stations do that try to reach the (poorly minded) masses.
        Thank you for that truly enlightening comment. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 09:03
        Now that things are clear and we all know that Wikipedia is not a news station (I hope it's understandable for you Brian), we need to put forth the most recent results on the main page.
Support. It doesn't hurt anyone to have it up. You may like to respond, but I'd be much obliged if you didn't. --JohnO 09:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- So you are opposed to discussion? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 09:25
Support. It's important and one of the biggest sport events in the world. NCurse_work 09:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Primarily because the Summer Olympics as well as far lesser events such as the Winter Olympics and the Commonwealth Games were included. In addition it is also the biggest current world news item at the moment and draws attention to the constantly updated information on Wikipedia in many fields. AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 10:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolute 100% support It's insane not to mention the World Cup scores. It's insane. Especially since the summer olympic scores are up. Oskar 13:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. For what it's worth. Badgerpatrol 14:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. We had the Olympics, this is of same importance. If there is a problem, the results can be added only from quarterfinals on, is that ok for everyone? --Ton e 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Results were there for the olympics and commonwelath games. It is a the biggest worldwide cultural and sporting event. Support on the condition that 1) No live scores 2) Only the mostt recent games are mentioned (i.e last 3) Rafy 16:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Biggest news story there is by a long way. violet/riga (t) 17:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Based on what? World Cup is only 1/5th of the main section of the BBC News website, so 1/5th of ITN is 1 sentence, which the World Cup already has. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 17:52
  - Based on what billions of people are watching and talking about, and the mass coverage on TV and throughout the net. Not just one example site. violet/riga (t) 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    - Your only supplying conjecture, though. Do you have evidence to back up your sweeping claims? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 23:27
Support, are you joking? And yes, voting is evil, but the editors don't seem to be doing their job, so let's hope they understand this. Alternatively we could of course turn the site into a USA-only one, but I think it's a bit late for that. Eixo 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
We've included links to both the 2006 FIFA World Cup article and the association football portal. How is this unsatisfactory? —David Levy 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm, a little bit because there (obviously) is an overwhelming consensus to have the scores on the main page. But mostly because clicking association football portal leads you to a picture of a three-year old kid who seems to be deliberately cicking the ball over the sideline. Cute as that would be any other day of the year, I don't think that's what peaople are looking for right now. Eixo 23:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1. I see no consensus of any sort.

2. This is a wiki. Why didn't you simply replace the offending image? (I've done so.)

3. I would hope that readers of Wikipedia are "looking for" an encyclopedia. —David Levy 00:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Support it looked good, it was of interested to literally tens of millions. Now we have a 'Portal' - death to portals. Dmn € Դմն 19:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support - it matches the ITN criteria of something in the news (yes, and in a big way) and there are updated articles. There's strong precedent (the Olympics and Commonwealth Games), so even if you argue it doesn't match the criteria, it suggests that WP practice has moved on from the written rules (which are not set in stone: they are wiki, not written on a golden tablet). At this stage the World Cup is a multiheaded monster so we need to link to lots of updated pages (which, individually, are not updated much but collectively which are updated far more than many other ITN items). Rather than face the POV minefield of selecting the most important results, a line or two of recent scorelines seems fine (though no live scores please!). Yes, there's more detail in the Portal, but it's serving a slightly different job. This is the world's largest cultural, media and sporting event for four years; how dull would it be to just keep a "the FIFA World Cup is continuing in Germany" in ITN for four weeks? It would make ITN look like it wasn't being updated... TheGrappler 19:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't the US Supreme Court. "Precedence" is just a word in most circumstances. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 19:44
- Your point is? I'm just using it as a word, not wikilegalese. I guess you could extend it to "well, if it's been done before, we ought to keep doing it until there is consensus to stop doing it" but that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying we've done it before, which means I'm wondering (a) what the big deal is this time that wasn't such a big deal last time and (b)thinking about consistency. There's a part of me that thinks "if stuck on the horns of a dilemma, at least try to be consistent". I am certainly not making a wikilegalese case out of this though. TheGrappler 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support Philc _T^E_C^I 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Polls are evil, but what the heck. Tito xd^(?!?) 23:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support come now... the "this is an encyclopedia" arguement doesnt work... this is supposed to be a collection of all world knowledge and on the top of the worlds mind right now is the world cup. The results should stay. If you want to argue that sports have no place on the front page, why not wait til after the cup to have that discussion instead of using this debate as a way of keeping the scores off the front for as long as possible, which it seems is working. Misterniceguy7 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong support I am not usually a fan of football but I like to follow the world cup as it is a event that brings the whole world together. LC@RSDATA 17:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why would you turn to an encyclopedia (as opposed to a news site) to follow such an event? That isn't the purpose of ITN. —David Levy 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to Lcarsdata and others, I hate to burst your bubble, but it does not bring "the whole world together". It does bring together an amazingly large number of people, but there is a significant minority that reacts against such blanket coverage of football. See the letters page of any newspaper to see what I mean. And to continue what David said, ITN is not a news service. If people are just scanning it to see what is happening, then ITN is failing to get people to click through to the articles and read them. That is what ITN is (or should be) about. Carcharoth 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Or if they do click through, and they find no new information beyond the score that they've already seen, the effect is similar. —David Levy 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. That is what I'm looking for everytime I go to the main page, trivia information. Lincher 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Support, 1/6 of the world is following a story in development, developments in this story are followed by great commotion within the involved parties. Quite frankly, hardly anything is more in the news than this event. PHF 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You know what, I retract my vote, you got me convinced. Wikipedia needs to get on with it's life. Though if I see in depth olympics coverage two years from now, I will make sure to hire ninjas and send them into the night to chop off all of your wangs in your sleep ;) . Again, nice talking to you guys, this was actually a constructive experience. PHF 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

ITN is not a list of headlines with the greatest presence "in the news." Someone recently suggested renaming the section, and I'm beginning to think that this might be a good idea; the misunderstanding appears to be more widespread than I'd realized. —David Levy 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Was that the "Behind the news" suggestion? I liked that one. Or "News in depth", or "Beyond the news", or "Understanding the news", or "News in context". Anything to reduce the misunderstandings. Carcharoth 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm referring to this proposal (which generated only one reply). Personally, I'd favor removing the word "news" from the name. Something along the lines of "Timely updates" (but hopefully better) might solve the problem. —David Levy 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I was referring to this edit]. "Timely updates" is not really the best-ever title. I think the "in depth" aspect is as important as the "updated" bit. And it does need to have "news" in the title to attract people looking to read up on the background to news events. At the moment, the title "In the news" doesn't make clear whether it is the events or articles that are in the news. Obvously the events are in the news, but the point of ITN is the articles, not the news itself. The "Today's featured article" section makes clear that the section is about the article. Maybe "Topical articles" or "News-related articles" are other possibilities. Carcharoth 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "Timely updates" is a rather unappealing name (hence my parenthetical notation). Your suggestions sound much better, but they don't convey the fact that the articles in question must have been updated to include new information pertaining to the news storys (which seems to be the important element that people fail to grasp). I'm sure that the perfect title is out there, and we just need to think of it. :) —David Levy 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The "renaming of ITN" discussion is probably best continued here, where another suggestion, "Topics in the news", has been made. That suggested name is my favorite so far, as it maintains continuity with the current name. Carcharoth 09:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would you deliberately deny this information from so many people who come looking for it though? I must admit, I came here because I had a hard time finding the world cup link within ITN, I actually only found out it was still there after reading the discussion. I certainly expected more after the coverage of the Winter Olympics. I don't understand why it is such a big deal to avoid repeating that kind of coverage, if the rules were softened earlier and everybody survived just fine, I don't see why we should make them stricter now. PHF 22:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, the previous abuse of ITN obviously contributed to widespread confusion regarding the section's nature (and perhaps that of Wikipedia itself). Every time we do this, more and more people will come to expect this type of news coverage from Wikipedia. That isn't fair to them, nor is it fair to the editors of Wikinews. —David Levy 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with David. In addition, people should not expect to find every headline in ITN. If there is a news story that they want to find Wikipedia coverage on, and the item is not covered in ITN, then they should use the normal search options to find the relevant articles. Carcharoth 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I hope you don't feel I'm being annoying with so many replies. If this is the case I can just let it go. My point is, I think that the previous coverage is hardly an abuse, this is obviously subject to interpretation. I also don't see what is the problem with more and more people expecting this kind of news, and I think it is very fair that this demand be corresponded, since I, as well as the voter above me, came looking here for this kind of thing. I personally find it unfair to me to be deliberately denied this expectation. I don't read wikinews, dont care about it. There is a reason Wikipedia is more popular and I would like to keep my discussion focused on this project. Also, I think it has been established that this is not just "every headline", you are trivializing this to make it sound like I will arrange precedent to demand that my weekend bowling game appears ITN, when actually I find it hard that any occasion will meet the precedent of global notability short of a world war or the next world cup ;) . PHF 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussion is good! Replies are never a problem. It is good that people are coming to Wikipedia for information, but the information on Wikipedia is packaged a certain way. It is (or should be) packaged in an informative and encyclopedia way. This is different to the way a news service packages information. The problem with "In the news" is that it has limited space. Despite that, a common complaint when people can't find something there is: "Please put <x> in the ITN box". This may indeed happen, but it is NOT put in the ITN box to help people find it; it should end up in the ITN box because there is a good article on it. When this is not the case, or there are too many other news items competing for the space, then people need to realise that they have to search for the article themselves - or even write it themselves. The primary purpose of the ITN box is not as a place for people to reliably find articles - it is merely one of several entry points into Wikipedia. There may be a case for a section along the lines of "Popular articles" - and ITN does partially fulfil that function, but the two concepts are actually quite different. Carcharoth 00:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I kinda like the popular articles thing, it would be similar to the special template used in the winter olympics. I guess I have nothing more to say, I guess it would be going off topic to say that I dont agree with the purpose of the ITN section, as it is apparently identical to the did you know section but for articles that aren't as obscure. Ironically I was kind of expecting something more like a cooperation with wikinews to get their top stories in Wikipedia. Guess my vote stands, and that is it, unless anybody has anything more to say, in any case nice talking to you guys. PHF 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"In the news" is for articles (new and old) that have been updated to include information pertaining to current news stories, and it's used strictly to highlight these updates (not pre-existing information). "Did you know..." is restricted to brand new articles only (but on a limitless variety of topics), and it can be used to highlight any interesting facts from these articles. —David Levy 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The World cup article is always updated with the latest scores from matches, that pertain to the news stories, and they could be highlighted. Fits the definition perfectly. Instead of putting up "The world cup continues", would it take that much more space to just list the scores? PHF 02:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As I've noted several times, article updates consisting entirely or primarily of the scores themselves are insufficient. The ITN entries are summaries that serve as pointers to detailed additions. When people click through to the article, only to find no new information beyond what they've already read in the ITN entry, the section has failed to serve its intended purpose. —David Levy 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but the fact that you and others "came looking here for this kind of thing" is symptomatic of the problem to which I'm referring. "This kind of thing" is not what Wikipedia is for, and there's nothing "unfair" about not providing it here. Your refusal to visit Wikinews (instead preferring that Wikipedia serve that site's intended function) is highly illogical. —David Levy 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I never said I preferred wikipedia for the purpose of news, I actually prefer other major news outlets. My attitude is not illogical, I just consider wikinews to be crap, for reasons not worth discussing in this topic. Like I said, I just expected wikipedia to correspond to major news events. And like I said, if it is not what wikipedia, or rather the specific ITN section, is for (even if that is subject to your interpretation), doesn't mean it should be that way forever and everyone agrees with that. It's like the mainstream did you know and I think it sucks (not really, could be better though).PHF 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1. If you believe that Wikinews is "crap," why don't you help to improve it? It is a wiki, after all. 2. Wikipedia does address major news events, but not by acting as a news site. It's an encyclopedia. 3. If you wish to propose that ITN's format be changed, go right ahead. —David Levy 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I got my hands full with wikipedia, and I think the news demand is met by other sources. I also think the definition of "acting as a news site" is a little loose. About the proposal, how would I go about doing that, if you dont mind me asking? PHF 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I recommend that you submit your proposal to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), with pointers at Talk:Main Page and Template talk:In the news. —David Levy 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, but I will pass. I guess I can make a compromise and just live with what we got now. People in the village pump seem awfully busy and it looks like things can take some time to happen there, maybe more than the length of the cup itself. And hey, I guess in the spirit of the event I consider it in good sportsmanship to just call it a tie. Cheers. PHF 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The closest thing to a discussion on changing the format of In The News seems to be the proposal at Talk:Current events#Should Current events be in the portal namespace? to make that page a portal. Though I'm not clear from this discussion here what the proposed change would be - to be more like a newsticker, to be more like a "popular articles" thing, or to be a larger thing (ie. an ITN portal)? Anyway, the ITN and Current events pages might be a good place to continue the discussions, rather than here. Carcharoth 09:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. The World Cup is bigger than ever this year. When people in America are going crazy about SOCCER, you know something's up. --Liface 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. The World Cup is perhaps the number one most important sporting event in the world. According to national geographic, more than half the world will follow it. SO WHY WON"T WIKIPEDIA? it's not logical. --Adam Wang 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Mubote
Support. - We only need what was there before - a small, text only summary of the recent results. Iorek85 01:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Polls are evil, but given that we've done this before for the Olympics and I liked it and agreed with it then, I see no reason why we can't do the same for the World Cup. However, final scores only please, and only recent (no more than 24 hours ago) games. BryanG^(talk) 06:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Of course we should! I'm surprised we aren't. Witt y lama 07:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Support - the reasons stated above cover it all - Master Of Ninja 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Support I just feel like it. Richardkselby 14:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Support I think even Trinidad & Tobago v. Togo (no offense for these teams) World Cup match is more important than current news "Rafael Nadal and Justine Henin-Hardenne win the singles tournaments at tennis's French Open."--Panairjdde 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Support The greatest showcase of footballing skills in the world, everyone at least deserves at the free choice to view more on the subject . -Mrpizersheep 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Support -- Banana04131 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Come on - just because it is a sporting event doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover it. If it is something as well-known and watched as it is (unlike "tiddywink world cup" as some are suggesting), why not? It's not setting a precedent, unless there are other events that are just as popular. Don't make comparisons between something as popular as this that occurs once every 4 years and just a yearly, not-as-important event. RyanMcK 02:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Don't forget that while this is merely "news" now, these games and results will be archived here, and looked up by millions of readers over the next few years. If the biggest sporting and television event of the year isn't notable for an ITN mention, then what exactly is? As reported on the Guardian website, www.guardian.co.uk, the top 5 most viewed articles yesterday all relate to the World Cup
What you've been reading: Wednesday's top stories on Guardian Unlimited
1. Superb Spain send out a warning
2. Heroes and zeroes - the First XI so far
3. Time to play like favourites, says Beckham
4. Clever Kaka kickstarts Brazil advance
5. Overweight and over here - that's the one and only Big Ron(aldo)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.243 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What warrants an ITN mention? How about an article that actually documents a current news story via a substantial update? —David Levy 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. It helps to show that Wikipedia is a "live" encyclopaedia, containing information that is bang up to date. It also makes the main page more interesting! Waggers 10:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
In this case, the links demonstrated how embarrassingly outdated most of the relevant national football team articles were. That's the opposite of ITN's intended purpose. —David Levy 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
But not a bad thing, getting the right two or three people to an outdated page can mean in a few days it receives a complete update. That's what alive means. And you can bet the links to the football pages will be followed more than the other ones. Piet 15:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a bad thing. On our main page, we link to articles of which we're proud. ("Today's featured article" has been deemed one of our best, all of the "On this day..."/"Today's featured picture" articles are good, the "Did you know..." articles have shaped up respectably in a short period of time, and the "In the news" articles have been substantially updated with information pertaining to current/recent events.) These links are followed by readers (not necessarily editors), and referring them to outdated articles sends the message that we don't have our act together. As you noted, the football-related links are likely to be followed by more people than any of the others—including new users with little or no prior familiarity with Wikipedia (or even wikis in general). "If this is what they're advertising on the front page," they might think, "I can only imagine how pathetic the rest of their articles are." —David Levy 16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The national team pages are embarassingly outdated, now? I beg to differ. PHF 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, when they were linked from the main page, only one (England national football team) contained substantial updates pertaining to the match's outcome. The others each contained three or fewer pertinent sentences, with some containing zero (absolutely no past-tense references to the games). That's embarrassing and unacceptable. —David Levy 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You do know eventually these results will fade away in time? Or do you expect we accumulate every single game result from now on until the end of time? Perhaps you would like the results of Brazil's 88 World Cup games so far listed on their page? I dont think it is unnacceptable at all, the Cup's page is updated, and the results belong and fit in better in that page. PHF 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
When these articles were linked from the main page, some of them still indicated that the concluded games were to occur in the future. That was outdated information.

Meanwhile, the 2006 FIFA World Cup article contained no detailed accounts of the games (à la what was written before and during the listing of Super Bowl XL on the main page), with the relevant updates limited to little more than the scores themselves.

Again, the purpose of ITN is to act as a gateway to major article updates. It is not to indiscriminately report the top headlines. The fact that the World Cup is an internationally important event does not automatically earn it coverage on the main page. In the absence of substantially updated prose, nothing qualifies for ITN inclusion. —David Levy 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, as far as I know there's nothing embarassing about the team pages and they look just fine. You make it sound like "OMG the Trinidad & Tobago team page is crap, Wikipedia sucks". It is fine. PHF 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that the team pages were "crap." I noted that some of them were outdated, and only one contained major updates that qualified it for ITN inclusion. The latter issue on its own is not necessarily a problem (because we can and do link to peripheral articles), but the qualifying updates must exist somewhere (2006 FIFA World Cup, for example). In this case, they were nowhere to be found. —David Levy 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
All I said is that the national team pages look fine, looked fine, I think both of us agree that every result shouldnt be listed at their pages, so the future world cup references shouldnt even be there earlier as far as I know. Also, the problems have been solved, so I don't see why they should be basis for argument now. Which is why I replied to your previous statement that it would be embarassing to wikipedia to show those articles. It isnt anymore. Attitude remains the same? Sure. I think we are tired of citing reasons why it should be included only to have "it's not what ITN/Wikipedia is about", so I was over that discussion previously. My position remains that this poll is poorly implemented and I have commented on how to improve in the other discussion section of this page following the Wikipedia:Voting is evil guideline: "To help counteract this, if you see a third option or compromise that has not been discussed, mention it!". I'm just defended the team pages for the sake of argument, since you seem to have cited them for the same reason, when the bottom line always remains: no way in hell scores should be included in ITN, since whatever the argument, all it takes is the guidelines to be presented. PHF 20:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
1. I never claimed that the national team articles were bad, so you're arguing against a straw man. 2. While I agree that these articles aren't the ideal locations for in-depth accounts of the games, it would be quite odd to not even mention the teams' standings in the current World Cup finals. 3. I don't know what the articles look like now. I was commenting strictly upon their states at the time. This remains relevant, however, as I have no reason to believe that further developments would be reflected in a more expedient manner. 4. I agree that this poll is poorly implemented. 5. I cited the national team articles for two reasons. One is my belief that either they or the 2006 FIFA World Cup article should have been substantially updated to warrant an ITN entry. The other is that while I believe that the latter option is more logical, it's also important that none of the linked articles actually contribute negatively (which some of the national team articles did by being outdated). —David Levy 02:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, forgive me for thinking "It is a bad thing. On our main page, we link to articles of which we're proud." and the fact that it contributes negatively is bad. Apparently it's more a straw man on my part than a play with semantics on yours. Fair play. PHF 22:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstood what I wrote. I described the situation (not the articles) as "bad." The "negative" aspect was that some of the articles were outdated. This didn't mean that they were bad; it simply meant that they were outdated. It's okay to link to non-updated articles (provided that at least one other linked article has been updated), but it isn't okay to link to articles that contain outdated information about the pertinent topic. —David Levy 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

News happens, and we can't postpone it until we get our pages sorted out. If we're unwilling to have links to articles that may be out of date, even if they are in the news, I fail to see the point of the "in the news" section. I agree with the earlier comment that having the links is a good thing, as it will spur editors to update those pages more quickly. Waggers 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, the point of the section is to feature articles that already have been substantially updated to reflect current/recent events. It is NOT to report the news. That's what Wikinews is for. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but I don't know how else to respond. —David Levy 02:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Its a big current event and not too much of an obstruction or hassle. Joshlmay 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support - On addition to the reasons stated above, posting the results serves to boost the Wikipedia community. Few other sports pull together so many teams from so many different countries. And few other sports are so widely popular. --Tjss (Talk) 00:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support! It's sort of unbelievable that some people would think this. After all, no one said anything about the Olympics when they were up there for a week and a half! Really, who cares?! It's just news. → J @red 02:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Wikipedia is my Home Page and it's handy to see the results without having to go to BBC or ITN. --Mark J 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong support Enciclopedists in 18th century France thought or at least attempted to summarize all knowledge in one edition. That could be the case at a time when knowledge was transferred through books and took years to reach different parts of the world. Nowadays the internet is the ultimate communication tool and it is real time, so I dont think we should consider the world cup differently from any other article being worked on and not yet satisfactoraly complete. Hopefully in the future WP will be known for redefining the idea of encyclopedic standards, atleast for being the first to get articles up. Who knows, we may redefine journalism as we give a view of events arrived via non-profit consensus.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 18:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Why can't "In the news" mention the biggest news there is? --Maitch 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Support Maybe a part in the "In the News".--G a n g staEB & friends 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Support --Spot87 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Support The FIFA World Cup is history in the making, and what better place to record such an event than an encyclopedia? There are hundreds of thousands of people viewing Wikipedia per day from around the world, in 229 different languages. Since soccer is the most played sport in the world, having the World Cup, an event that only happens once every four years, scores on the main page would not only be convenient for the viewer, but would also be a great business move for Wikipedia in order to attract more viewers to the site.--Vo 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Support - all the nations of the world are at least the slightest bit interested in football, even the Americans, this time round, to an extent. It affects millions. You can't go outside in England without seeing a St. Georges Flag. It's viral. It shouldn't be ruined by people who lack interest in football. We're not talking about taking over the page here... Moitio ^(talk) 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. Major sporting events should have a small fixed size section dedicated to them.- sYndicate ^talk 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Support The World Cup is much bigger than the Olympics. No-one else is pushing it off the front page. Chicheley 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Support Biggest sporting event in the world, I mean come on! Alspittle 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally supported because most people want easy access to scores of a big event. Besides it shouldn't hurt anybody to do that. I can spel

Oppose

Oppose: Should Wikipedia be a provider of up to date sports scores? Should an encyclopedia--should the MAIN PAGE of an encyclopedia, for that matter, function as an outlit for updates on a sporting event? I think the answer is a clear no. The final, sure, but every match going on the front page? It's absurd. Preston 07:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- That fact that you see it only as a sporting event speaks volumes. Ohh and it's in the box called In The News. Even http://www.Britannica.com ~ has one of those. But it's not as good as ours. Jooler
Yes, it is in a box called In The News. And it is currently in the In New News box: "The 2006 FIFA World Cup continues in Germany. See the football portal for up-to-date details." Your point is thus void. And as for speaking volumes, I'm sorry that the rest of the world (disclosure: I am an American) is so excited about said sporting event (yes, I said it. People in uniforms on a field kicking a ball according to a set of standard rules tends to qualify as a sport), but might does not make right. Unless one of the losing soccer players pulls a gun out after giving up a goal and starts shooting at the other team, the status quo is good enough. Preston 18:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- - And the fact that the Support voters are simply saying "it's the most important thing in the world" also speaks volumes. Britannica doesn't cover it in their News section, and even BBC News's main page only devotes about 15% of their page to it, the equivalent of a short sentence on ITN, which we already have: "The 2006 FIFA World Cup continues in Germany." Now, I've provided 2 pieces of evidence; can you provide any? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 08:22
    - Brian, I do not see what you are getting at with the tired BBC example. As if there is any doubt, I can assure that the World Cup is the biggest media story at the moment in the UK. If the BBC could include only 5 items, 2 or 3 would most likely be given over to the World Cup, certainly in the days before England games. It is the news the people want to hear. A large portion of Auntie's website is given over to it; there is an option to customise one's desktop to a World Cup format, the live score is currently displayed prominantly and, as has been mentioned ad infinitum by myself and others, 2 out of the 5 current ITN items have yet to even appear on the BBC headlines page anyway, as far as I have seen. I do not quite understand why you are so rabidly against this idea. Badgerpatrol 14:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      - The BBC News site is a world news source, not a UK news source, just as ITN is a world news source. The 6 top sections on BBC News's site are not about the World Cup. Number 7 and 10 are about the World Cup. Your opinion about what the biggest news story is doesn't change the fact that it only amounts to about 1/5th of the BBC News's world news page, and 1/5th of ITN = a sentence. You can conjecture all you want about what the BBC would do, but its nothing without evidence, which I've been providing. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 17:56
        I've got to say Brian, I still don't really see your argument. Wikipedia and the BBC are simply not equivalent. As I see it, there are three major points here. 1) The World Cup is a massive global event, possibly the biggest and indubitably one of the biggest individual (i.e. non-ongoing) news stories this year. No-one disputes this. I would suggest that even individual World Cup group games would generally be considered to hold more import than, for example, upheavals in the Icelandic government. 2) Linking to the scores provides pages that need to be updated and should be updated, either generally (pointing to the pages of specific competitor countries) or specifically (pointing to pages for specific national football teams). 3) A very clear precedent has already been set with reference to sporting events that are unarguably of lesser significance, and some are suggesting that the exclusion of the WC is an example of some kind of US-centrism. I suspect the reason for this is because many are wondering why this particular event has been singled out at this time for no obvious reason (let's face it, given the 'news' stories that have recently been included on ITN, space is hardly at a premium), and drawing inference from the fact that (amongst adults at least, if not across all generations) football is not amongst the most popular sports in America Today's events are perhaps unlikely to change this in the short-term!. Whilst I do detect some ill-informed comments and notes of cultural discord amongst the voluminous conversation over the past few days (from both sides of the argument), I personally am not sure that US-bias is the cause; certainly the major debaters (David and TheGrappler) have set out their cases clearly, sensibly, and diplomatically, for the most part at least. I can (with disappointment) accept the exclusion of WC scores from the front page if necessary, although I think they should be there- but this acceptance would be contingent on there being a very clear, unbreakable committment to never include the results (i.e medal tables, individual event results) of any future sporting event. Personally, I think this would be rather sad. These kind of events are just about the one time that EVERYONE can come together for a few weeks and put aside their differences to just follow the footy, or the running, or the swimming or whatever. I feel a symbolic nod to this on the Main Page of this great international project is appropriate. Anyway, I digress; in short- If the next Olympics or any other event is included in the future and the WC continues to be marginalised, I predict an e-riot! ;-) But if there is a ruling, and if it is fairly and consistently applied, then I hope everyone will accept it. All the best, Badgerpatrol 23:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    - My point was that even Britannica has an in the news section; but what they choose to put in it is up to them and as Britannica is an American publication I'm not suprised by their editorial choice. You'll note that they put the parochial New York Times - above the BBC. Okay check out the BBC's Portuguese language site. http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/ Jooler 08:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      - Please dont bring BBC into the play as a serious comparison source, it's media for the poor masses, not everything from BCC is correct and proven thus it does not qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.42.129 (talk • contribs)
        Eh? Jooler 09:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      - The New York Times is hardly parochial. If there is a national newspaper of the US, it's the New York Times. —Cuivi é nen 15:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        Exactly. Parochial US paper. Jooler 21:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        Nonsense. It's basically the national paper of the US, and it's published in New York, because newspapers have to be published somewhere. If BBC World News broadcasts from London, is it also a parochial news show? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 21:47
        You mean the BBC World Service news which broadcasts in 33 language throughout the globe with an estimated audience of 165 million, or the BBC World Service website 33 languages?. Oh BTW The main BBC News page is currently showing the results of ALL three of todays games. Jooler 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        Yes, and many other news sites undoubtedly are doing the same thing. Wikipedia, however, is not a news site; it's an encyclopedia. —David Levy 23:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        Yes we are an encyclopaedia and we have articles about the competition all of the teams e.g. United States men's national soccer team and all of the squads and every single player taking part. All of these articles are "in the news", quite prominently as illustrated by the BBC examples. Geddit? Now I am directly responding to Brian's dismisal of the BBC's coverage e.g. ""it only amounts to about 1/5th of the BBC News's world news page, and 1/5th of ITN = a sentence. You can conjecture all you want about what the BBC would do, but its nothing without evidence, which I've been providing" - so can you please do not simply says "we are not a news site" Jooler 14:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        As someone who uses ITN to find interesting articles about topical (in the news) articles, can I just say that having a link pointing to the World Cup every day for a month is a complete waste, IMO. It is a question of balance. Something like the recent earthquake drops out of the news because the main coverage dwindles, but something like the World Cup or Olympics is perpetually in the news for many days. This is an imbalance seen in news services. ITN is not a news service, so it should, IMO, be able to avoid such imbalances and skewing towards ongoing news. It requires someone to judge when the article has been updated enough to reappear on ITN, not whether it is "in the news" continuously for a month - anyone can judge that. Would you agree to a featured article appearing on the Main Page for 30 days running? If not, why have a link to the football portal for a whole month? And yes, I feel the same way about the Olympics and other sporting festivals. Carcharoth 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        My point is that the purpose of ITN is not to simply report the biggest news headlines. It's supposed to serve as a gateway to relevant articles with meaningful updates. Contrary to your claim that "all of the national football team pages" are "being constantly updated," some of them were linked from the main page before they even contained mentions of the matches' outcomes (let alone detailed accounts of the games)! That's unacceptable. —David Levy 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        This is ludicrous, you could just copy and paste that as a response to every support argument on this page. What's the point? It is! Is not. It is! Is not. It is! Is not. PHF 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    - FYI the Australia - Japan game is currently in progress and the BBC have got the LIVE score prominently on the front page Jooler 13:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      - So what? ITN is not the BBC. Wikipedia is not the BBC. I know people who would be avoiding news websites due to not wanting to know the score or results, and they would find it strange, to say the least, that an encyclopedia had live scores on its front page. So I say again: so what? Your comment is absolutely pointless unless you can justify live scores on an encyclopedia front page. I look forward to seeing you try. Carcharoth 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Opose: This is streatching the purpose and intent of ITN at best. It's articles that have been updated with current affairs, not updated with sports results. Sure the event itself deserves a mention; the start, then end, the final winner. But not a blow by blow account. --Monotonehell 11:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. It's fine with me to have a permanent link to the World Cup article on ITN. A link to Portal:Association football with the latest scores and news is also okay with me. I would also like to see news highlights, such as teams advancing to the next round or being eliminated. And scores for the championship game are also okay with me. But, all the scores for the duration of the World Cup are a bit much. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose - if we put World Cup scores on (and ITN is not a scoreboard) we will end up putting every single score for every single event. No way, ITN is not a ticker -- Tawker 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No. The World Cup is a uniquely massive sporting event. violet/riga (t) 08:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. But that is more an argument for getting the World Cup articles to featured status, rather than having either: (a) ITN as a football results news service; or (b) a link on the Main Page to the World Cup article/portal for a whole month. Featured articles only get a day. Why should a minor portal get a link for a whole month? Carcharoth 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose posting of the scores, however, the "The 2006 FIFA World Cup continues in Germany. See the football portal for up-to-date details." text should stay at the bottom of the ITN area. That is the best compromise. --Howard t he Du c k 04:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. It gives the whole thing undue weight. Just because more people watch it doesn't mean it's more important. Have a small link to redirect people to the article on the World Cup and have the scores and other details there. Any major news points can still be included. -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The FIFA World Cup may be a uniquely massive sporting event, but the support voters are consistently misunderstanding the purpose of "In the News", which is not a news service. When a coherent (ie. not ongoing) and substantial (not just a scoreline) set of editing has updated an article about something that was recently, or is, in the news, then the article should be linked from ITN, but not before. Get news from a news website. Don't expect to see all the major news headlines in ITN. If something you want to see is not there, go and edit the article and substantially update it and then propose it for ITN. The corollary to this is wanting the Wikipedia Main Page to reflect what is most important in your life at this present time - which is veering towards treating it as a personal home page. I don't expect the news that I personally find interesting and relevant to appear on ITN - I expect to find a diverse and sometimes obscure range of links to articles that are currently topical (in the news). No more. No less. I don't expect to find something on ITN continuously for a month, when there are better place to follow a developing news story. Carcharoth 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It would set an unwise precedent for Wikipedia. Wikinews is the place for such things to be reported. People should focus their efforts on getting the 2006 World Cup article up to FA status (of course this could only be achieved after the end of the competition, due to the need for stability in the article) as opposed to updating the score on the main page; this would be much better for Wikipedia in the Long Term. --Wisd e n17 18:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Not exactly encyclopaedic information. Wikipedia is not a sports ticker service. As somebody wisely pointed out, people should focus on cleaning up and improving soccer related articles instead. --Jaakonam 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I would suggest adding a link to the Sports Portal though and displaying the results there. --NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Perhaps some critical game (like the final one) or an unexpected upset would be worthwhile, but not a mention for any of the regular games. ~MDD4696 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Every game is critical. Jooler 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  - That is the standard of your argument? It is not a question of whether any individual game is critical to any one country, or even if an unexpected upset makes headlines around the world. It is a question of balance. What earthly reason is there to turn one line of ITN into either a "results service", or a link to the "Football portal", for a whole month? I would suggest that football fans who want to see World Cup football articles in ITN, should bring those articles up to scratch and then write and submit ITN items that link to those articles. But don't just link to football articles for the sake of it because there is a World Cup on. That is just lazy. And if there are more interesting or better articles linked from news items, then those might be used on ITN instead. The World Cup shouldn't have some sort of special status just because it is dominating headlines. ITN is for anything in the news, not just headline news. Carcharoth 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    - I'm making a direct reponse to MMD. He said "Perhaps some critical game ..." - every game IS critical. Jooler 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      - It is very likely that there will be some non-critical games. Carcharoth 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    - "The World Cup shouldn't have some sort of special status just because it is dominating headlines" - so because something is "in the news" it shouldnt be in In The News. What? Jooler 00:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      - Just because something is dominating headlines doesn't mean it should dominate In The News. By all means have one or two, or even more, informative items over the course of a week. But not days and days of "score" items. The groups stages alone, at three games a day, is about 2 weeks of non-stop coverage. That is not balanced. Carcharoth 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia is not a sport news service. Ahy1 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: Agree with the above user. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 22:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see the point sorry. What about people who don't care about soccer ? What is the relationship with wikipedia and it's goals ? This will not attract the right people anyway, as they will probably think that wikipedia is good for anything. But it isn't. 164.15.125.134 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
... not sure that was a serious vote... Misterniceguy7 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Why? —David Levy 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I misunderstood "think that wikipedia is good for anything. But it isn't" as meaning "wikipedia is good for nothing" but understand what he said now. Misterniceguy7 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as the precendent it sets is too dangerous. What next? Tiddlywink world cup? (I wonder if that link will come up red or blue, hmmm). I support having a notification such as "The 2006 Soccer World Cup continues", and a ITN story on the actual final, but I draw the line at every single game. Furthermore, instead of voting just on this, a policy should be written on sports events for ITN. --Midnighttonight 08:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- This would not set a precedent- this would merely be following an established precedent. In fact, not including results would establish a new precedent- that is a very important point. You seem to be basing your objection on your opinion that the importance of the World Cup is in doubt; in fact, the uniqueness and importance of the event (perhaps alongside the Summer Olympics) is unquestionable, although you seem to be ignorant of this. It is certainly not just any old sporting event, as you imply with the above. I do agree wholeheartedly that the outcome of this should be an addition to the ITN guidelines to ensure a fair application of policy in future. Badgerpatrol 08:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Summer Olympics - all countries compete. Soccer World Cup - 32 teams compete. Sure, it is not any old sporting event, but tell the tiddlywink players out there that their world cup is not important! And I don't support every Olympics event being on the front page either, nor the Commonwealth Games, nor the Rugby World Cup. --Midnighttonight 08:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually over 190 competed to reach the finals. I don't think tiddlywinks is the national sport of quite so many countries. Jooler 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As Jooler said, the 32 teams remaining are the survivors of nearly 200 who began the tournament 2 years ago. I am not certain that all nations compete in the Olympics, but it is frankly the case that, for some competiting countries, any 'athlete' who fancies a trip to an exotic Olympic village is able to compete (i.e. a swimmer who is unable to swim, a ski-jumper who is barely able to ski-jump, etc etc). That is not the case in the WC finals; thumpings are rare in the modern tournament, with only one dished out so far this time. The fact is, the precedent has been set previously. That may or may not have been a mistake (I don't think it was, certainly for the Summer Olympics, although minority events like the Commonwealths and Winter Games may be a more ambigiuous proposition). People want to know what the difference is this time, and frankly want some assurance that the 'rules' (and I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why including the scores contravenes the ITN guidelines, since the links were to updated pages) will be fairly enforced in future. I think your post above makes an excellent case for giving more prominance to the WC, since it is clear that you (and perhaps some other editors in this discussion) have no clue about the tournament, its competitors, rules and format. Bearing in mind it is watched by billions of people and is the major news story in perhaps 60-70% of the world right now, that's quite an ommission that ought to be addressed. Badgerpatrol 15:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I know enough about the Soccer World Cup, and having the scores is not going to improve the knowledge out there. the problem I have is that ITN is meant to be about helping people find out more on things happening the world. Hence one link to the World Cup would suffice, any more and you are turning ITN in Wikinews (or Wikisportsnews in this case). --Midnighttonight 02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: Once this cat's out of the bag it won't go back. Even if the WC is the largest global sporting event, it will only be a matter of time before the NFL, MLB, Rugby, et al feel they're being discriminated against and they need their sport listed as well. Then where do you draw the line; Tractor pulls, cow chip contests, Scotish highland games? What the deuce? Historical scores great and live scores, go to BBC, ESPN, etc. The next thing someone will argue is that Brittney Spears baby updates are "valid" ITN articles. Don't start stinking this place up. At the end of the day you'd have to ask yourself, WWPD? What Would Pele' Do? --Docmartn 18:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm amused that you say putting world cup scores on the main page will lead to brittney spears baby updates... seems like quite a stretch of the imagination. Misterniceguy7 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The cat is already out of the bag. Olympic and Commonwealth results already have appeared on the main page, thus there is a pre-established precedent. The point you are missing is the uniqueness of this event. Only the most ignorant and misty-eyed sports fan would seriously suggest that NFL, NBA, regional cricket tests, regional rugby competitions etc are of equivalent global stature to the World Cup (although I certainly could see a case possibly being made for major international tournaments of all those sports perhaps being included, certainly cricket and basketball (is there a basketball world championship?) which have significant global followings). An analogy might be reporting a crime; a single person murdered in London is unlikely to make ITN. By contrast, if that single person killed was e.g. the Prime Minister or the Queen, then it most definitely would, as a unique and important event of obvious global interest. Few would argue that including the news that Teflon Tony or some other major figure has been bumped off would set a precedent that every murder of any sort must be featured on the main page. Similarly, including the most important sporting tournaments does not necessitate including them all; it is fairly obvious that there are two events which are by far the most followed of all sporting tournaments worldwide- the World Cup and the Summer Olympics. Badgerpatrol 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1. I disagree that the arguable mistakes made during the Olympics and Commonwealth Games should be held as sacrosanct "precedents," especially given the fact that many people have expressed a desire to avoid repeating such behavior in the future.

2. If Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth were murdered, I would hope that more than three sentences on the subject would be added to his or her article. Unfortunately, all but one of the national football team articles linked from ITN received this amount of attention or less (with some actually lacking past-tense references to the matches). —David Levy 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
1) One reason to follow the established precedent is in order to maintain the appearance of fairness. It currently seems to be the case that many editors consider it unfair and discriminatory that the WC results are currently being excluded. Nonetheless, neither policy nor precedent need be sacrosanct, if the consensus is that the previous inclusion of Olympic and Cwealth results was a mistake. As I have mentioned elsewhere, it would be acceptable to me and perhaps to others that the results be excluded provided there is a cast-iron guarantee that this change to precedent will be fairly and universally applied in future. As you yourself have noted, the opinions of many people (whether in the majority or, as I suspect in this case, not) do not a consensus make.

2) I am surprised at the lack of activity regarding those pages and I must admit I can't adequately explain it. Reports from the last tournament are reasonably extensive; it is possible that everyone is at home or in the pub watching the games, rather than at home updating the encyclopaedia ;-) I would suggest that as the tournament takes shape in later group and knockout games, those pages will be edited more extensively. Badgerpatrol 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
1. I agree that any decision to limit the amount of World Cup coverage should be regarded as a new precedent to be applied to future sporting events of comparable magnitude (such as the Olympics).

2. When upsets, eliminations, etc. lead to major article updates, ITN entries likely will be warranted. (A similar standard should be applied to the Olympics.) —David Levy 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I would generally be satisified with that, but I would like some kind of clarification as to what should be regarded as a new precedent actually means. As we have seen, it is currently the case that an absolute mockery can be made of precedent even when, as is the case at the moment, there is obviously no consensus (and certainly not even an overwhelming majority of opinion) that it should be changed. All that would satisfy me (and I can't speak for others) would be a clear policy change to the effect that event results, medal tables, scores etc etc. are excluded from the main page completely, except under the circumstances you outline in your second point above. Simply setting a new, evidently completely unenforcable, 'precedent' is obviously not enough. This discussion will soon be archived. If in 2 years time we are in a situation where Olympic results are habitually being displayed on the main page, as they have been in the past, then many, many editors (myself included) are going to cry foul- and with justification. I trust that everyone will be as strident in their opposition to including results as they are now- because I can definitely see the issue rising again. Badgerpatrol 15:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
We don't really need a policy change; existing policy already disallows the behavior in question. The problem is that said policy was ignored, despite the fact that there was no consensus to do so. We need to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that this doesn't happen again. If this entails the codification of specific language (serving as clarification), so be it. The "new precedent" would be that we don't disregard our normal ITN standards to accommodate popular events.

I, too, cannot speak for others, but I promise that I shall maintain this stance when the Olympics roll around. —David Levy 16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that, and the way things are, that's all I am asking. And I would like to compliment you for your patience and integrity among this heated debate. PHF 20:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Starghost (for the most part, anyway!). Perhaps, as you say, a policy change is not needed- but a policy clarification certainly is. Clearly, people are interpreting the ITN criteria [1] as currently worded in a number of ways. From what I can see, this problem of interpretation is not just restricted to the World Cup or indeed to sport in general; I think in particular that we may all be able to quote numerous examples from ITN that contravene Criterion 3. I would strongly suggest that, since it seems unlikely that scores themselves are going to be included, the criteria are reworded to reflect this change in precedent and clarify the situation for everyone. I would also suggest that the selection of ITN items be tightened up generally. Badgerpatrol 02:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If Tony Blair or George Bush were murdered, I would expect to read about it in wikinews, not wikipedia. I think the entire news box should be culled.Juneappal 03:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Getting rid of the ITN box completely is one option, although I don't think it's a popular one. I personally find it a valuable addition to the main page. Badgerpatrol 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I am a fan of World Cup Football, but I don't want to see it everywhere I turn. Link to the portal. Juneappal 22:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: While this is an event that a large chunk of the world's population is interested in, it is not neccessary for it to be on the Wikipedia landing page. The Olympics is a world event but Olympic results were not posted in the news section. Wikinews is the appropriate place for this information to go. Epolk 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Um... yes, olympic results had a rather large amount of space on the main page... that is one of the main reasons the opposition to the World Cup match scores came as such a surprise to many of us... Misterniceguy7 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: The World Cup is fun and all, but it is not a news portal. Other sites will be able to do it better than Wikipedia and people will go there for that purpose. The link on In the news should be sufficent. x42bn6 Talk 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: News was never the priority here - it's only listed because these 'current events' will become articles of historical record once they stop being news, so in that way current events end up in the encyclopedia. In that sense, the purpose of the 'recent news' section is to alert people to new news stories that may need to be edited/added to/watched so that their eventual encyclopedia entries are maintained at a high standard. The purpose of the 'recent news' isn't to keep people up to date on the news of the world. Wikipedia isn't a news source; rather the news is a source for Wikipedia. In that event, a permanent reference on the front page wouldn't make much sense: as well as their being no purpose for the link, it would push other recent news stories off the page, reducing the effectiveness of the news box. CastorQuinn 03:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The posted results never were and were never meant to be listed ITN such that they would stay up and push other stories off. The way they were posted was on the bottom and only each days results... taking up very little space compared to previous sporting events. Misterniceguy7 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose ITN should be there to give people quick links to topics that are currently important. For example, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed I got to learn all about him, Islamism, the Salafi movement, Shia Muslims, etc, etc. This is the difference between ITN and Wikinews. A line like: "Czech Republic defeats the United States in round one of the World Cup." would be acceptable, but "CZ 3 - US 0" doesn't belong here. There are plenty of sites that provide score updates, ITN should provide depth. Nscheffey^(T/C) 11:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is this an oppose vote then, or a comment? I too think it should be a line like that and yet my vote is under support. Piet 11:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose As has been said, wikipedia's main focus should be the encyclopedia angle, not a news source. Eykanal 14:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose A link to an appropriate page would suffice rather than take space away from the Main Page Siraphec 17:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose wikipedia is not an up to date news. if we do not show terrorist attacks or results in elections, nor olypic games. the this either LadyofHats 20:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC).
Just in case you didn't know, Wikipedia did show up to date coverage of the Olympics and Commonwealth Games. PHF 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose This is not a sports web site. I don't care how many people watch a goddamn sporting event, that doesn't make it worthy of front page coverage on an ENCYCLOPEDIA site. There are literally thousands of other sources for this information. Anon Y. Mouse 23:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Anon Y. Mouse, except without the cursing. If there were a big science competition of some sort would we keep up-to-date scores? --Niroht 12:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Badgerpatrol 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I'd rather see precedent reset to having no extended mention of individual sports events on ITN, otherwise it's impossible to draw the line at any particular event. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose To echo all the other voices above, this is an encyclopedia. The World Cup is awesome and all but this is not a sports site or even a news site. And regarding the Olympics, I wouldn't favor putting all the Olympic results on the front page either.-- Laura S | talk to me 23:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Brian. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I love the World Cup and am watching it all but the WP front page is simply not the place for the scores. Andeggs 20:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Let's try and keep a sense of proportion about this. It's just a game. Dejvid 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Weakly Oppose. If everyone really really wants it up there, that might be okay. But i personally don't. --Alecmconroy 17:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with the many contributors above who have pointed out that Wikpedia is fundamentally an encycolpedia. The ITN section has always appeared to me to cover the interesting, educational and unusual in preference to the massively popular. Dave 21:10, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Oppose. For that matter I oppose the precendants (Olympics, Commonwealth Games). THe blurb at the bottom should be enough for any sporting event. And maybe it is just me, but when I am looking for up to date info about sports or news, I will ckeck a sports or news website. say1988 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil.

I usually approve of straw polls, but here is where I draw the line. This will accomplish nothing other than to further divide and inflame the community. Rather than voting, we should strive to reach a mutually acceptable solution. Failing that, let's just flip a bloody coin and be done with it. I despise that idea, but anything is preferable to a futile vote. —David Levy 07:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Straw polls aren't legitimate final decisions anyway; they simply show you where the current viewers stand, and on Talk:Main Page, "current viewers" are any random users who come along and have no knowledge of what the situation is. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:24
- Comment. Random users - perfect. It's not a difficult question to understand and hopefully we can get an idea what the ratio of support/oppose is. Right now there are a few vocal people strongly supporting or opposing. With a straw poll we get a chance to get a more balanced view. Perhaps the two camps are not at all equal in numbers. And if so, then it is certainly better as decision support material than a coin flip. --Denoir 07:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  - Get all the numbers you want. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and straw polls count for nothing. Discussion towards consensus is the only reasonable course of action. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:41
    - Furthermore, this sort of debate typically degenerates into a petty, nationalistic shouting match. Without naming names, I'll simply note that one of the worst offenders is present and accounted for. —David Levy 07:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    - Yes, to quote: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus... Read that again - in difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus. This is a difficult case, so we're polling. After looking over the discussions, I'm starting to think that this is a cultural thing - that it is a questions of people from certain nations (namely the US) don't get the international importance of the world cup finals. The poll is for their benefit. --Denoir 08:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      - Now, just read the rest of your quote: "... but [straw polls] are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes." You're hasty desire to put it to a vote, or worse, a coin flip, shows a lack of caution in resorting to voting. Why are you opposed to discussion? Because it's taking too long for your patience? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 08:25
      - No, discussion is great, if it leads to something. Right now we have to diametrically opposed factions who have been at it for two days. I don't see it leading anywhere. And a vote has the chance of being more useful than a coin flip. Why are you so afraid of a vote. It's not binding - it's a decision support tool. --Denoir 08:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        Have you been in many huge debates? Two days is a drop in the bucket. It took a month of work to agree to the lead section of Creation science, and all that work was undone again in a week, when new folks arrived. This is normal practice. Don't try to turn this back around on me; I'm not afraid of a vote, but I know how much time they waste. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 08:59
      - I'm bothered most by the continual assertions that Americans must not appreciate the World Cup's magnitude. To you, that seems like the only conceivable reason why anyone could oppose the scores' inclusion. On the contrary, most of us are well aware of the event's enormity. From my viewpoint, American Wikipedians are in the best position to act impartially, as we generally aren't influenced by..."World Cup fever," so to speak. (This, of course, is merely a strong variety of an ailment that afflicts many Americans during our own athletic competitions.) I see person after person declaring that "the World Cup is the biggest news story in the world, so it's ludicrous not to put give it heaps of attention on the main page!", but very few have made any attempt to demonstrate that the linked articles meet our basic inclusion criteria. Essentially, they love the World Cup, so they want to see it up there. And do you know what? I'm okay with that. It really isn't such a big deal to bend the rules and make people happy. It's just incredibly frustrating to see so many people blindly dismissing the possibility that there could even be a legitimate basis for an opposing viewpoint. Nope, it must me those ignorant Americans. —David Levy 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        And I like to add that we are not necessarily from the US. This has nothing to do with nationality. I'm watching the games, just not on wikipedias main page. Zarniwoot 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This is probably quite pointless. Unless the status-qou is a fair compromise, I prefer the coin-flip method, followed by deliberations and a final, semi-permanent decision on Wikipedia policy regarding sports scores. Preston 07:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The fair compromise is only listing scores for the finals, and doing the same thing for all the other major events of other sports. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:28
  - These are the finals. Nobody is suggesting that the qualification games should have been listed. --Denoir 08:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    - By "finals", I meant the final round, between the last two teams, not the dozens of preceding rounds, which are more correctly called quarter/semi-finals, or some other fractional name. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 09:08
      - The problem with that solution is that it can be perceived as going against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. There's 32 teams at the World Cup Finals and for many countries, matches in the Finals is akin to a national holiday or an important moment in their history. For example, look at the reactions from the various debut nations at the Finals World Cup debutants: Opening matches. By limiting the ITN listing to the final game, it would leave out games of a sporting and cultural significance to the other 30 countries that don't make it to the final match on July 9. Thus, simply listing the results of the WC winner is only a band aid solution at best. You either have to keep all scores (for NPOV considerations) or remove them all, period. --Madchester 15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        Nonsense. From a neutral viewpoint (setting aside any national loyalties), the final match is the most important by far. It's absurd to claim otherwise. —David Levy 16:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        That has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard, and an obvious misuse of the NPOV policy. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:00
Comment. I didn't bring up a straw poll because it's most likely going to lead to a "no consensus" result. Over the weekend, I've seen how the arguments have swung in favour for the scores only to be overruled by other people a day later. The point of the coin flip is to bring some closure to this issue. I don't think it's fair for admins to be dealing with this issue on a daily basis from now till July. --Madchester 07:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The coin flip will not bring any closure to the issue if it determines that the World Cup should be allowed, but no other sports should. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:31
  - I would argue that some other admins abused their privleges by including live results of a Stanley Cup Finals game, when it went against WP:NPOV, namely the editing guidelines shown in ITN... (Template_talk:In_the_news#Notes_for_users). How many international news sources reported Game 3 scores of the Stanley Cup Finals?--Madchester 07:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support: Voting is evil. Jude (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Brian. If we take the BBC argument (which seems fair to me), we get one line. What we do with that line is up to us - we could link to a Portal:World Cup, which lists scores as they come in. I mean, it's not just the website that uses ratios like that. TV news broadcasts (at least in the UK) use the same ratios - a small percentage of sport, not just the World Cup, is at the end. In my mind, this is quite a clear-cut case. On the other hand, Voting is evil, especially in this case. This is not a binding vote, and rational consensus-driven discussion is the only way to come to the right (or most acceptable) decision. —Celestianpower ^háblame 08:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- - IF this is your argument then FYI -The Australia - Japan game is currently in progress and the LIVE score is displayed promintly on the BBC front page. Should we follow that example? Jooler 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    - If you want to add live scores, you'll have to remove other stuff that's already there, such as the portal link to all the scores, in order to keep our mention of the World Cup on ITN about equal to the mention on BBC News. And then you'll have to worry about other sports finals wanting their scores live on ITN. There's no need to go down that path when we can simply link to the football portal, where there is plenty of space to list scores. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:02
      - "And then you'll have to worry about other sports finals wanting their scores live on ITN." Other events of the same magnitude. People are asking for this because of the way the Olympic results were displayed, so yes, people ask that if one international event is featured in this way, others of greater magnitude are as well. People aren't asking for all football results to be displayed, just the most result World Cup Final results. You may disagree with that, and I hope that you also disagreed with displaying the Olympic results, but to compare the WC with 'other sports finals' is really missing the point. It isn't about the sport, to most people following. Skittle 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. A World Cup Portal seems like the perfect option. Now we just need someone to create it... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 09:10
If a portal gets used, what's wrong with Portal:Association football? Oldelpaso 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Association football already exists. Let's please keep this portal updated with World Cup news and events, rather than splitting off the World Cup into another portal. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The purpose of ITN is to provide links to decent, updated articles to provide background information on current news stories. We have decent, updated articles on the matches, teams and competition, and it will be in the news for quite some time, in a very prominent way. On this score, links to our updated articles are positive. On the other hand, filling up the front page with a single thing (such as the Olympics or Declaration of World Peace), no matter how important and significant, can make it harder to see the encyclopedia content. So I'd go with a World Cup Portal, linked from a short blurb in ITN. Also, not including updated scores for this will scupper any chance of the Olympics having such a thing next time. I know many people consider this a positive result, but some may not have considered it. Skittle 11:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Scores on the Main Page are Evil, but voting is even more Evil. —Cuivi é nen 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Kill this poll. Sasquatch t|c 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Kill it quickly. Do we even need a straw poll about this sort of thing?--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot believe this has come to this. joturn e r 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Kill this poll per above. --mav 03:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
At this rate, the World Cup will be over before we reach a consensus. It's not important – Gurch 10:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's why I don't understand why people want to kill this poll. It proves two points. If you bow to one way you moon to the other. And, it'll give you an idea how passionately people react to things which are not just about religion, politics or society. ---Jaakonam 13:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Jaakonam, and wanted to add that it is in fact important because next time we see the olympic games and commonwealth games get a special template there will be a soccer riot. PHF 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Other discussion

In case anyone's been wondering whether this is an accurate cross-section of the community...[2] —David Levy 01:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not an accurate cross-sampling; even if Jooler didn't do that, I still wouldn't have trusted it as such, but Jooler definitely made it more skewed. Should we counteract it by leaving a note on the American Football project's page? Everyone knows Americans hate soccer... err, I mean, futbol ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 02:19

I must say, comments like that do not help counteract the idea (more or less unfounded in my personal view) that the underlying cause of this dispute is American cultural insensitivity and bias. If you can't think of anything constructive to say in order to move the discussion foward, then it might be best not to participate (having said that, I think it is unwise to go politicking on other pages to drum up support, if that was Jooler's intent). This need not descend into an 'America vs The World' debate- I think we all have quite enough of that outside of Wikipedia and it is very tiresome and unhelpful. Hopefully we can move the debate forward in a meaningful way rather than wasting space sniping at each other. Badgerpatrol 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My last sentence was a joke. I have clarified. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 02:41

Yes, I know it was a joke. It was an unhelpful one. I think we should generally try and avoid using language that may be misinterpreted as polarising the debate around a nationalistic mindset. Badgerpatrol 02:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Concern noted. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 02:56

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, but I'm fairly certain that Brian's remark was a jocular reference to the perceived American cultural insensitivity and bias, not a serious suggestion. —David Levy 02:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And now I see that Brian confirmed this as I was typing it. —David Levy 02:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above- I know it was meant in a light-hearted way- that isn't my point. Badgerpatrol 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave a note there? I see absolutely nothing wrong in informing people of the fact that there is a vote taking place regarding a subject that they would be interested in. It's common practice. What's your problem? Jooler 08:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If this were a dispute in which people who "would be interested in" the subject were likely to hold differing viewpoints, you'd be correct. For example, if we were attempting to determine the best way to configure a coin-related article, it would be entirely appropriate to alert the members of WikiProject Numismatics. The problem is that you deliberately alerted a group of people who are likely to overwhelmingly favor a particular outcome. Meanwhile, there's no "football-haters" project to inform (not that I would). —David Levy 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Sending the interested parties to Portal:Association football, vastly increases the likelihood of them seeing the related "tasks you can do", or related articles they could read. Which is why we are here, to read and write an encyclopedia. (I'm a Brit in Canada. Voting is evil. ITN is not a newsticker). -Quiddity 18:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. What is the point of the poll? Finding out what people want only to justify that it can't be done according to the guidelines is not going to help anything. It seems analogous to me like making a poll "Do you want Wikipedia to give you free money?". A lot of people will support it only to have other people say "That's not what wikipedia is for". Maybe the question in this poll could be better phrased to something like "Do you think the guidelines for the In the News section should change to acommodate the world cup?" and maybe something else like "Do you think sports events coverage should cease alltoghether?" or "Do you think Wikipedia's purpose should be giving you free money?". I think those should be more efficient in determining the course of action through a more focused discussion. PHF 05:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's no point. This had dragged on so long that everyone putting comments here is just wasting their time. The exclusionists have won. BTW Someone said "There are thousands of other sources for this information", but put "FIFA World Cup" into Google and Wikipedia comes 4th the first non-FIFA site, so a lot of people come here for World Cup information, and it is the biggest internationla event occuring in the World at the moment. also to those who keep saying Wikipedia isn't a news site. Nor is Google's Web Search but but "World Cup" into the search and it shows you the results. This is my last comment, don't bother to reply I won't read it. Jooler 12:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment* The exclusionists have won with a practical filibuster of the supporters... Misterniceguy7 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment* The world cup remains the greatest sporting event WORLD WIDE, with people in remote areas without electricity, water or gasoline, making huge efforts to follow it. The exclusionists have not debunked this reality.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  - Nor have they attempted to. (That's a straw man argument.) It's fair to say, however, that the notion that Wikipedia is a news site (or that the purpose of ITN is to report news) has been thoroughly debunked. —David Levy 18:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

Why not? It's only once every 4 years!

I support the Poll, as the World Cup scores will not be displayed everyday, but just during the time of the World Cup and World Cup matches are not played everyday. Cheers.Support as even the least significant match holds more news value for a majority of the people in the world than any other news, it certainly qualifies as news. Furthermore, given the broad interest for the world cup, this is a good opportunity to attract some more users and editors. --Denoir 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Care to provide evidence of your claim? The BBC World News disagrees. This seems to suggest your view of the world is a bit skewed toward diversions. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:27 The BBC has a whole site dedicated to the World Cup. -http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/default.stm. What's your point? Jooler 07:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Isn't it obvious? The BBC News's main page is not flooded with sports statistics. We have pages where current statistics can go, such as the Sports Portal. Not the main page of an encyclopedia. Why not update the Sports Portal to something worth viewing, rather than trashing it in favor of the front page? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:44 But the BBC main page currently DOES give four links to football results, that is what I would like here. Nothing more than BBC, the same. Piet 07:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Two of those links are related to news stories, not the football games themselves. Also, you're forgetting that BBC News is a news page, equal to one quarter of our main page. So, count up how many entries are about World Cup, and how many are about other things, and then you can figure out how much or little space should be spent on the World Cup. I count 2 out of 15 stories in the main section of BBC News (everything in the brown area, and above) referring to the World Cup. So, assuming ITN has 5 stories, that's about equal to one very short entry on ITN, which the World Cup already has: "The 2006 FIFA World Cup continues in Germany." Done and done. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 08:10 Make that 4 out of 16, but the whole argument is specious reasoning. Following