Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15
Threads older than 14 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.


What do people think about eSports on ITN? We have a ton of sports featured at ITNR (some questionable IMHO) but to my knowledge NOT EVEN A SINGLE post has been about eSports. Furthermore, I have a feeling that the AVERAGE folk checking up wikipedia is more towards being of a fan of gaming over actual sports than the average person. And the limited interest doesn't really stand IMO when you look how many gaming events have been covered by say some ESPN channels (compared to I think none when it comes to say Canadian Football).

I proposed to have the 2014 League of Legends World Championship a few months ago and it was shut down for various arguments, but I think if anyone checks the actual viewership numbers (unfortunately available post-factum) I doubt that many voters there would have been against posting an event that gets 27 unique viewers - there aren't this many fans worldwide for either Gaelic, Canadian or Aussie-rules football yet they get an ITNR spot each. Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally am not against internet sports being posted, provided that there is enough attention to the event in the news, and there is an adequate article about the subject. Please keep proposing major events when you see them. These sports are growing in popularity, and while the last nomination did not get consensus to post, it's possible that future discussion will see it through.
I do not, however, believe that gaming events are ready to be added to ITN/R. At least not until one has been posted a couple years in a row. Mamyles (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily thinking about ITNR. But I am curious what sort of threshold would such an event have to pass to get through ITNC? Nergaal (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The Boat Race? –HTD 22:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I understand you. That is broadcast on some BBC channel and the number of fans is limited to about the city of London. But the event itself is well before computers were invented. Nergaal (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The boat race is competed by amateurs from two schools at not the highest level of the sport of rowing. Your suggestion looks like a world championship of a discipline of a sport where professionals take part. It should pass the boat race threshold. –HTD 17:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There is not a set-in-stone threshold to get through ITNC. It's based entirely on consensus and the posting admin's read of it, which are subjective. An event is more likely to get through if: there is a well-written, updated article; coverage is received by mainstream news sources; the nominator provides a compelling argument for posting; or even if it is during an especially slow news period.
Looking back at the nomination, the primary argument against it was that there was only one section in a not very developed article about the tournament. Developing a standalone article for the tournament would help, and could be done readily by copying the style of other tournaments that are posted. Feel free to give notices about a nomination at project pages that have expertise in the subject (like WP:VG). Few of the contributors in that nomination seemed to know what they were talking about. Mamyles (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ISS flights[edit]

Looking at the nomination for the recent launch to the ISS(and noting that it wasn't proposed as ITNR), I wonder if we should amend the ITNR listing of "launch of manned orbital spaceflights" to exclude routine flights to the ISS- which technically are manned orbital flights(but I agree should not be posted). Maybe we don't need to, just a thought. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Boat Race, Harvard-Yale Game, criteria for sporting events[edit]

Discussion continuing below in formal proposal. Closing this to avoid fragmented discussion --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please Remove these two items. There doesn't seem to be clear criteria for which sporting events make it into this page. The previous discussion from the archives does not address some objections I raised. There was much talk about NCAA and such, but the NCAA is a national organization, not a single competition between two university clubs. (1) There is no process for others to compete. These are not tournaments. This is traditionalism and elitism at it's worst. These are exclusive private clubs. (2) It seems to be a personal issue for particular editors, using stats like TV coverage does not help. The same individuals are arguing against other sports also covered on television. So, this TV coverage criterion seems to be quite arbitrary. (3) The focus of the events is regional, not global or even national. There are other longstanding rivalries between university clubs that are not covered in this way. The Boat Race does not include clubs from the rest of the UK. The Harvard-Yale Game does not include clubs from the rest of the United States. Most people don't know. This does not fit the criteria for general interest. (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

For information, previous discussion that resulted in consensus for inclusion is here: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 13#The Boat Race. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, someone was pulling your leg; the Harvard-Yale Game is not on WP:ITNR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I was just reading the archives and would like to continue this discussion further. Thank you for being helpful. I may have posted this in the wrong page at first, my mistake; but everyone else seemed to only crack semantic jokes instead of engaging in meaningful debate. Thanks again. I'm also reading the discussion from archive 15. Jeois (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Harvard-Yale is interesting in America, and not ITNR. The Boat Race has a global audience, and is in ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
And let's have none of your semantic jokes, Rambler. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Wink is as good as a nod.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I was more referring to the person who ask where I'd been for 400 years, and when I said he/she was being hyperbolic, the person linked me to a geometric shape Jeois (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
That is shocking. That's like calling someone a complete square. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
My point was that Harvard-Yale is NOT interesting in America. More importantly, please demonstrate how much of the global audience is interested as opposed to some estimate of BBC or ITV media market penetration. Moreover, both these events are pretty much exclusive, private events which do no allow for fair competition. In other words, the participants' merits have more to do with academics and family wealth rather than competitive rowing ability. Jeois (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You're saying The Boat Race is a "private event"? lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC) (.... and nothing to do with "competitive rowing ability"? um, I think you need to read up on some of the participants....)
Is the Boat Race not American enough for you?? " Are You Not Entertained?" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) There are other issues besides the mechanics and structure of the events themselves. The Boat Race draws wide attention and interest (250,000 watch it live and millions on TV) and is a significant event in the UK. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The Boat Race is watched by 250k live, millions in the UK on TV and is broadcast to 10s if not 100s of millions worldwide. The Yale-Harvard canoe trip? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want to get personal, I'm not even a natural born American. I understand it may be culturally significant to you personally. Is that the criteria? All I'm seeing is British media penetration when I do searches on google. Besides being elitist, inclusion here of this is also ethnocentric. --Jeois (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I invite you to nominate comparable events. We can only consider nominations that are made. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Like NCAA Basketball? Like the Stanley Cup? Like Four Hour Glorification of All Things United Statesion? Ethnocentricity rules baby. For what it's worth, the criteria aren't defined by any one single individual, as this is Wikipedia. Feel free to nominate any item you like that's currently listed at ITNR for delisting. That's your prerogative. Here, you're just likely to get indignation and humour in almost equal parts. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You'll never get indignation from me. And a C-section is nothing to be ashamed of. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for listing examples of events of national organizations. If it were up to me, those wouldn't be listed as well, but like I said, at least they're national organizations. If collegiate/amateur rowing in the UK had some kind of league or tournament, and this was the final, then I would have much less of an objection. Jeois (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You won't be the first to find this anachronistic display of the feudal class system a bit elitist. But in 2012, apparently "They almost took his head off". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be almost as big as fox hunting. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
"The Englishman never enjoys himself except for a noble purpose." - A. P. Herbert. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been scouring the internet to find the source for these claims of global viewership statistics; but so far, every single reference is from British media, and by British, I actually mean English. Besides one or two articles describing how females are allowed to participate this year, there is no coverage. Females participating is more of a news story than who won if you ask me. Yes, we all know (whichever TV channel managed to secure licensing for broadcast) has a global audience, but that doesn't mean people are watching. You can cite stats about viewership, but they mean absolutely nothing in this context if you're just going off estimates of how many people receive cable/satellite TV. This is a joke about goats. IF you're outside of the UK, and you actually watched this thing, please comment and let us know what you thought. You do realize it's not a real competition as the same two teams go at it every year as if there aren't other rowing clubs out there. Let's be completely honest, this is a personal interest story for a few select wiki editors and/or admins. Jeois (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and a few hundred thousand spectators who went to see it live and a few million who watched in the UK on television and few dozen millions who watched it worldwide and the several thousands of readers who have clicked on the article. Or were you referring to the 2015 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship Game which is currently at ITN which had fewer than 20,000 spectators, was broadcast on ESPN and has had a few hundred readers click on the article? Let's be completely honest, the stories on ITN are of differing levels of interest to different people. It really is that simple! Cheers. P.S. How did you differentiate between British and English media? I'd love to know! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, the bits that are not Welsh, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk)
...or Scottish. Or Northern Irish. They actually have tv stations and newspapers in Scotland too, contrary to what some may think. As well as electricity and toilets and stuff. HAdG (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't asking you lot, I was asking Jeois. But thanks for your usual banter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I also just went and looked at the archived consensus on this item: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 13#The Boat Race, and frankly it doesn't look like a consensus to me at all: most of the discussion was a dispute over viewing figures, and the final "consensus" is based on just six views: four "support" and two "oppose". The users opposed cited some very sensible concerns which remained unaddressed on this archived discussion, such as:

  1. This is the only rowing event on ITN; are we sure this the globally most significant event of that sport? How about the World Rowing Championships instead?
  2. This event is only open to an extremely narrow range of participants: students at two universities with notoriously skewed student populations in terms of social extraction. For that reason alone, and quite regardless of viewer figures, this event is unrepresentative of the sport. Accordingly, there is considerable controversy even in host country Britain over the extensive media coverage (see archived discussion).
  3. Similar events of long-standing tradition and arguably greater sporting/competitive significance exist in many other countries, and are very poorly reported on the English-language wikipedia. Example: the Regata delle Antiche Repubbliche Marinare in Italy.

For all of these reasons, I concur with the user who opened this discussion, and strongly oppose further inclusion of the Oxbridge Boat Race in ITN. I would support including the World Rowing Championships instead. HAdG (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This event gets far much more attention and has more of a cultural impact than the World Rowing Championships, which gets little if any attention. (Frankly I didn't even know there was such a thing until recently.) The Olympic competitions might get more attention, but the Olympics themselves already are posted. 331dot (talk)
  • Have we ever posted the Army-Navy Game? That's a 125 year-old college rivalry match of great national interest. I'll also point out that the presumption is that items are on ITNR because there is established consensus for them to be there. What's needed is a sufficient number of posts to keep it, otherwise the presumption is in favor of removal.
Just my personal opinion but I think the importance of the Army-Navy game has diminished somewhat in recent years, much as the Harvard-Yale game. Please state where that interpretation of consensus for ITNR items is written down or otherwise established. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment if this is to turn into a "remove The Boat Race" from ITN, please format it and formulate it properly before jumping on some kind of half-arsed bandwagon, along with the Yale-Harvard race, which has never been an ITN, let alone and ITNR. Just because you're up in arms over a sporting event which has taken place for 186 years that features world class rowers and is broadcast globally, please do things properly. Suggesting other rowing races should be included in ITNR is fine, but is entirely independent of whether The Boat Race should be there. Think about it people, you're normally a lot more intelligent than this. In fact, suggesting an item that doesn't even have an English-language article for inclusion at ITNR in preference to the Boat Race is symbolic of a complete and unadulterated misunderstanding of what this Wikipedia is all about. In fact, I'll nominate it for removal (again) for you, so you actually make a neutral and sensible proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal: remove The Boat Race from ITNR[edit]

The Boat Race was added to ITNR in May 2014 following the proposal of User:ThaddeusB. Its inclusion was contested in January 2015 by User:Calathan (who later removed the proposal). This proposal is to discuss the removal of The Boat Race from ITNR (of course, which will not invalidate it from being included at every ITNC, where it has featured last year and this year). Please comment below on the proposal. Declaring an interest: I've created and/or taken 159 of the 161 individual Boat Race articles to GA or FA, my interest here, however, is just to allow a neutrally-phrased proposal to allow yet another consensus to be formed before it all turns to rabid in-fighting, mainly between US and a few UK editors.The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support removal - Interests a small group of enthusiasts and is otherwise not ITN-worthy, in my view. Jusdafax 20:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    270,000 live viewers, millions of domestic viewers and tens of million worldwide. Not sure that equates to a "small group of enthusiasts" but hey, YMMV. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of a longstanding cultural event that draws wide attention and interest, per the reasoning on the initial proposal. It isn't just about the rowing- though this is a notable rowing race, more so than the World Championships. 270,000 live viewers and millions on TV is hardly a "small group of enthusiasts", at least any more than some of the other sports that are also ITNR. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - historic fixture and one of the principal events on the UK's sporting calendar. Also draws a considerable interest across the world. More significant now that there is a women's equivalent on the same day. Not sure it's much more significant than the Grand National, but just as quintessentially British. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal which should come as no surprise. The competition has been around for 186 years and currently features some of the world's top rowers. Rowers who, in fact, take a degree or a doctorate at Oxbridge just to row in the contest, Olympians, World Champions, who actively seek to row in this unique and worldwide-followed challenge. Currently heavily sponsored by an American company, with, this year, rowers from New Zealand, The Netherlands, Austria, Australia, many from the United States and the odd one from GB, in the men's race alone demonstrates that this is more than interesting to "a small group of enthusiasts" (like the Chess Olympiad or Netball World Championships), but in this year's inaugural race on the Thames, the women's race featured a triple Olympic medallist (two of them gold, over three Olympics), an American no less, in multiple World Champion Caryn Davies. Before claiming "small group of enthusiasts", do some homework. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removing for the same reasons as I gave in the previous discussion. This is an amateur university sporting event, open to students who happen to attend one of just two institutions. It is by no means the pinnacle of the sport of rowing. The fact that several participants have later gone on to successful rowing careers, or that it draws a fairly significant TV audience (still much less than many other events we don't post) does not make the event itself sufficiently notable for ITNR. In addition, why post one of the Oxbridge varsity sports and not the others? Putting The Varsity Match, Ice Hockey Varsity Match and The University Match on there would plainly be ridiculous. Modest Genius talk 18:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Moved my !vote from the section above. In addition, I find the arguments presented by those above to be unconvincing. Merely being old doesn't count for much. Having several nationalities represented is unsurprising given the demographics of Oxbridge students, and I don't see why that matters. As a Brit myself, I find the suggestion that it is somehow 'quintessentially British' to be both laughable and irrelevant to whether it should be on ITNR or not. Modest Genius talk 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Glad you enjoyed a good laugh. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - The only importance any sport has is the significance people choose to assign to it. Whether that event is a "world championship" or not and whether it is "professional" or nor is completely and utterly unimportant. A "rule" that only professional competitions matter is a false premise - no sport matters if no one pays attention. It might make decisions "easy", but that doesn't make it a good rule. ITN should reflect what the world views as important, not what a handful of editors decide is important... In the case of The Boat Race, the world views it as important. Many people from multiple countries tune in or otherwise follow the race. The same can't be said of the World rowing championships, for example. It would be flat out wrong to substitute our judgement ("only world championships matter") for that of the real world ("The Boat Race matters"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal - Like I said before, this is traditionalism and elitism at it's worst. Many who support this using traditionalist arguments are being hypocritical about similar longstanding sporting rivalries between ONLY 2 universities. Those using the cultural argument have a slightly better case, but it is wholly unsatisfying in that it revolves entirely around ethnocentrism. Nobody has clearly demonstrated people in the rest of the world has in interest in this besides using estimates of British media penetration. Moreover, as you can see today, this particular event has bumped off the Election Results in Nigeria which affect ALL Nigerian citizens and the entire region, not just two rowing crews or those who took a few minutes off in London to watch this event. The strongest reason for removal is that this does not fit the criterion of sporting events held by national organizations as there are obviously other rowing clubs in the United Kingdom which are not represented, and as a rule, CANNOT EVER be represented. Jeois (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You think that, apart from the rowers themselves, there were just folks who "took a few minutes off in London to watch this event"? I think the sponsors, NYB Mellon, might see things a little differently. And they're hardly just your local hardware store, are they? I'm really not sure that ITN allows for any consideration of "what's bumped off" as a result of any new posting (although that might be a familiar assessment to any conventional news outlet). I think every item is simply considered on its own merits. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I retract the poorly written phrase "not just two rowing crews... event"; my points still stand. Jeois (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Please point out other two-university events or other UK rowing events which draw 270,000 to watch live and tens of millions on TV, and have gone on for almost 200 years. I don't really understand the "elitism" point you are trying to make. If ITNR and ITN postings are made based on the number of people affected and not notability and news coverage, it would greatly limit what is posted. ITN isn't about posting events which directly or indirectly affect the largest number of people; it is about the criteria listed here. As Martinevans states, what is bumped off ITN has no bearing on what goes on it. If you want to see events from under-covered areas posted, please nominate them; but that doesn't mean other events should be excluded. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's not go in circles disputing media estimates. I acknowledged your case for cultural relevance. It is unconvincing. The elitism argument is quite clear: this event does not allow for participation by other rowing clubs through a national organization (i.e. a tournament or league). Jeois (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to impugn the media estimates, I'm happy to see your reliable sources which do so. There is no requirement that posted events have wide participation. Who participates is not relevant. As I asked, please name other comparable events. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to dispute the media estimates because that's just silly, imo. By this logic, almost every single piece that China Central Television produces should go into ITN for cultural significance. I strongly oppose that. I also oppose listing comparable sports events in ITN/R. Jeois (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking you list comparable events for their posting to ITNR; I'm just asking for them to see if it bolsters your argument. If you are unwilling to offer evidence disputing the media estimates then that part of your argument is immaterial. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You're making a straw man argument here 331dot. Of course there aren't any other events which meet the exact same criteria - which were essentially a description of the Boat Race - that you specified. But there are certainly university events which draw bigger TV audiences, just look at the NCAA. Jeois has acknowledged your points and merely indicated that they disagree with them. It would be nice if you could extend Jeois the same courtesy, rather than presenting them with a constantly shifting set of goalposts. Modest Genius talk 23:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure which goalposts I have supposedly shifted, I was responding to their comment, just as they responded to comments here. They talked about ethnocentrism so I wanted to know about other comparable events from other areas that are not posted or even nominated. I don't see that I am denying anyone any courtesies. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You are correct; it is not really part of my argument since I'm not making that case that low media coverage automatically means the event shouldn't be included ITN. Part of your argument says deep media penetration matters, which I find unconvincing, and I've demonstrated why I feel this way. Part of my motivation for engaging in this discussion was to clarify the criteria for inclusion of such sporting events. I've stated very clearly one criterion I would like to see being utilized; this event does not fit. We really don't know who are the best rowers in the UK at the moment (professional, university or amateur), based on this event, do we? Jeois (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal- One reason the Boat Race is so significant that I think has been understated is that this is not really just a university competition. Oxford and Cambridge are home to some of the best rowers from all over the world at any level, with the event frequently featuring Olympic medalists. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • OBJECT to wording; we need not find consensus to support in order to remove the item. ITNR works by assuming consensus exists. If consensus to keep is not shown, the item is to be removed. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So every time someone who dislikes an ITNR subject initiates a discussion to remove it, those who support it must show up to keep it from being removed? I disagree that the onus should be on supporters. --331dot (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not how things work on Wikipedia. In the absence of new consensus, the status quo remains in place. The Boat Race was added to ITN/R per consensus and will remain there unless there is consensus to remove. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the Army-Navy game was played in a facility that can accomodate 250,000+ people, especially since the largest capacity football stadium in the US can only accomodate around 110,000. --331dot (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The Boat Race is not played in such a 'facility' either. It is held on a long stretch of public river - there is no fixed 'capacity' for members of the public standing along its length. Hardly a fair comparison. Modest Genius talk 17:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The original comparison was entirely bogus and without any verifiable evidence. Hardly a fair comparison. And it's indisputable that over a quarter of a million watched the Boat Race live, plus millions live on televisions around the world. Still I note that you had no problem with the foul comparison with fox-hunting, which is, after all, even more disgraceful and "hardly a fair comparison". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll see your social indignation and raise you an elitist inequality. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Remove I think the elitism argument is fair - this is a race that only members of teams from two specific schools can participate in, and as such, is not really a competition. The Army-Navy game is an apt analogue as well as other NCAA football rivalries (Ohio Stats vs Michigan, Texas vs Texas AM, etc.), and basically for bragging rights. Contrast that to championship playoffs that have a wide range of initial competing teams. The spectator/viewership numbers don't really matter too much here, nor the long history of the event. While it might be considered the highest level of rowing sport (short of the Olympics), we also don't need to cover every sport out there under ITN (which already dominates ITNR). --MASEM (t) 01:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Let's be clear here about what ITNR is meant to represent. If this event was not ITNR and was nominated every year it happens, will it make it onto ITN? I think it would be a coin toss, or perhaps there's probably a higher likelihood that it will not make it since it is such a niche subject. In my view this is a typical event that does not meet ITNR criteria. Colipon+(Talk) 03:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal, although it's great that the articles are high quality and well-maintained. Elitism is a red herring as are any claim standards; the only thing that should matter is popularity / interest. I'm not British so can't say for sure, but [1] seems to imply 5-6 million people watched. I could be wrong, but that sounds like about the amount of interest in, say, a big Premier League game? Which most definitely would *not* show up on ITN. Yes, there's something to be said for throwing a bone to smaller sports, but eh. SnowFire (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    Just for info, most popular Prem league match last month was viewed by 1.7 million viewers, according to BARB. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding elitism do those who keep banging the elitism drum believe that the 6.2+ million Brits who watched in on television and the 270,000 who watched it on the banks of the Thames are all elitist? If so, that's a very naive understanding of elitism. For those who missed it, the race is sponsored by an American bank and includes Olympic and World champion rowers, so yes, from a sporting and sponsorship point of view, it has elite rowers and elite business interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It's the participation aspect, not viewership. It's a closed event, for all purposes. The comparison to school rivalry college football games like Army vs Navy is apt here, since the viewership numbers are similarly high; it's still a "closed" event. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Not at all, you simply have to be a student at either Cambridge or Oxford to participate in the Boat Race. I'm not certain where this sudden definition of a "closed event" comes from, I don't see many teams from Europe participating in the World Series, nor clubs from India playing for the Superbowl... Oh, and one assumes to represent the Army, you have to be in the Army? Closed event. Anyway, nice swerve on the real meat, once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
        • It is, for all purposes, the equivalent of navel gazing; two long-time rival schools having a competition between their rowing teams. Yes, it draws a lot of attention and coverage, but it is still just navel gazing. And there's plenty of other events we don't cover that would be the same - for example, we don't post the results of the MLB All-Star game or the NFL Pro Bowl, because that is navel gazing at what is treated as light-hearted contests between players. The other events involve numerous teams and players that play often enough to narrow down the final teams to the best of all teams/players in that season for a final game/series, while here, while it is usually the case that we are talking about the best rowers in the world, the contest is not determining that. It is a very closed-sphere event on its impact to the world at large. Just because it is a tradition and long-standing one does not mean it is necessary news. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
          • You're doing a very good job of ignoring all the points I'm making and continuing with your own odd stance. I give in, you and the others win. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Sorry, Rambler. We are seeking consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
              • Tell me about it. Now we are American Wikipedia, this sort of thing is impossible to convince people who think we have a canoe race up the Thames from time to time with a bunch of super-elitist talentless-but-rich toffs that only appeals to a handful of fox-hunting twats in Surrey. The crass and sometimes deliberate ignorance is too much for me to care for this discussion any longer. I'll get back to making decent articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak removal If this was an inclusion discussion, I would advocate not adding it to ITN/R due to the many reasons listed above. It is a non-championship game, between two amateur teams (as in non-professional), that has little encyclopedic relevance besides its history and a list of who won each year. Though, The Boat Races 2015 is of especially good quality, even if it does come off more as a news article than encyclopedia article. This event may have been posted this year even if it was not on ITN/R. Mamyles (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I believe because of the high quality of the article, we should allow for it to be showcased on the main page under "ongoing", just to provide a link to the article. I am of the view that the 'blurb' structure of ITN is generally detrimental to showcasing high quality articles and is the root cause of most major disputes on ITN. But this is a long-term view that true ITN reform needs to take place rather than having separate discussions over unclear criteria. Colipon+(Talk) 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Article quality is not a sole criteria for posting an ITN article. An article needs to both be in the news (sufficiently notable) and of decent quality. Both of these criteria are given weight in the subjective posting discussion. I would not agree with simply posting links to sports events in the ITN template. If an article merits posting, it should have a blurb. An exception is recent deaths and ongoing events, as decided by previous consensus, which I do not entirely agree with. Mamyles (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal This really have no business being in int/r, if we really want to have rowing in here, we shouls include world rowing championship instead. SeraV (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    By all means propose it. We can have zero, one, two or more items for rowing at ITN/R if a consensus agrees. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
How about a whole front page? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal, weakly - I've gone back and forth on this, as should be obvious based on my previous proposal to remove it and then my withdrawing of that proposal. However, my current thinking is that this shouldn't be an ITN/R item. It seems to me that the competition is heavily watched in Britain, but of niche interest elsewhere. It also feels less significant than many of the other sporting events at ITN/R, which are the championship or largest events in a season of competition. Calathan (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, that's right, it's far less popular than netball. Netball, like the Boat Race, and Superbowl, and any other niche sport, is of "niche interest". When did "niche interest" become a prohibitive factor for ITNR? Chess is "of niche interest", Canadian football (!!) is of "niche interest", but no, let's all focus on the Boat Race. Good work one and all! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's that tiny niche, where the cox sits. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we had a pretty comfortable seat, albeit narrow. It did make my back hurt when the fucking incompetent rowers twitched and rocked out of time. But hey "GO CANADIAN FOOTBALL". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Many events could be removed from the list if the criteria was a large worldwide audience. A sporting event doesn't have to be a championship to have cultural significance, as this race does. It isn't just about the rowing. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I do think the list of ITN/R sports is too long now, so the argument that other things could be removed doesn't change my opinion. I agree that there are other things on the list that probably should be removed (e.g., netball). Calathan (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
As I tell Nergaal below, removing "lesser known" sports could present some systemic bias issues. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's true, and we should consider each sport individually and objectively before removing them from ITN/R. However, that is irrelevant to whether The Boat Race should be ITN/R. Removing The Boat Race will still leave British sports represented by football (soccer), cricket, tennis, golf, rugby, horse racing, etc., so I don't see how removing this one event could lead to systemic bias. Calathan (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Systemic bias isn't just relating to nations; it also relates to subject matter and people's familiarity with it. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the ITNR list being too long, please see my comment in the section below. Two of the five items on "In the news" are currently ELEVEN DAYS OLD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal and I would be fine with removing some more of the lesser known sports. Meanwhile, an e-sport event drawing over 20 mil viewers didn't even get the ITNC pass, while at only 8 mil this gets the ITNR pass. Nergaal (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Removing "lesser known" sports would lead to some systemic bias issues. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so a good reason for removing this is "because you want something else on ITNR"? Great argument. (And it wasn't "only 8 mil", it was 6.2 million in the UK alone, plus worldwide audiences) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I am saying, if higher-impact events don't even pass ITNC, then lower-impact shouldn't get a ITNC bye via ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per my post in the purple box above that was archived by ThaddeusB. HAdG (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    Did you ever get round to creating an article about the race you consider more significant than the Boat Race that started in the 1960s? I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
On my to-do list. I actually have a life outside wikipedia too, perhaps unlike others. HAdG (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Domestic inter-varsity sport should never be considered to reach the level of world-wide importance to qualify it for ITNR. It's true that the boat race has viewing figures and tradition on its side, but less so than, for example, X Factor, Top Gear or pardoning the Christmas turkey. Formerip (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Please show where there is a requirement for "world-wide importance" to be on ITNR. If so, most of the list can probably be jettisoned as very little of it has "world-wide importance". 331dot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm having a hard time seeing how the arguments in favor of removing this are not just IDONTLIKEIT. I don't particularly like rowing and only know what I read here about this race, but clearly seems to be a significant event culturally and within the sport. There are no requirements of worldwide importance or large worldwide audiences; there are no requirements of only having professional sports or top-level competitions; something can be significant without being such a competition. It is very disappointing that the significance of this is being dismissed so easily. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There are no particular requirements for ITNR at all, just the fact that it is supposed to feature events that are supposedly a shoo-in. The fact that a significant number of editors don't think this should be on the list speaks for itself on that front, and any cogent reason given is valid. Formerip (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What is speaks to is that the logical reasons for this being here are not being understood, for whatever reason. Aside from that we have or end up with a decent article on the subject that can be put on the main page and help people learn about something which is our mission- we should want to post this sort of thing. Very disappointing. If an almost 200 year old annual event between two ancient universities which draws much attention and top talent in a sport doesn't merit being here, I guess I'm not sure what does. --331dot (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a question of the "logical reasons" not being understood. It's something that is in the eye of the beholder. If some people don't see it (and, I have to say, I'm one of those), then they don't and that's all there is to it. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That should be one of the reasons we're having this discussion. You're saying "there are no requirements" for this or that. I'm asking what are the criteria then? The significance is not clearly defined or understood by all. I'm sure many in favor of removal would agree the article is well-written and does mean something culturally to some, but you're just repeating the traditionalist points yet again. TV viewership seems to matter to some, although I find it ridiculous since any channel with a global presence can rack up large numbers, but if this is a criterion then what is the threshold? 5 million viewers? How many people have to gather/assemble at an event? 250k? If so, there are a whole litany of events which aren't ITN-worthy, e.g. Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival,2014–15 CBA season both of which happened recently, and we've given you plenty of other similar examples. I understand it may be interesting to some, but what are the criteria other than because you like it? Jeois (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste your time or mine restating the reasons this is currently on the ITNR list that are already written here and on the original discussion leading to its inclusion. As I said, I don't particularly like this subject, but is usually has a good article each year and it is about a notable subject with significant interest that readers might want to learn more about. I don't understand what is wrong with "traditionalism" or even how that is relevant. Even the Super Bowl is "tradition", and is only 50 years old as opposed to the almost 200-year old history of this race between two universities that have existed for hundreds of years. Your aforementioned music festival is only 16 years old. Some even seem to admit it would probably merit posting through the regular ITNC process- which, if it did every year, would mean it should be ITNR. I really don't have much more to say; it is disappointing that the reasons to include this are not understood and so easily dismissed. Are we an encyclopedia? Or just about posting what is popular and widely known? 331dot (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, we seem to have some agreement, at least between the two of us, that this shouldn't simply be a popularity contest; however, the majority-view here seems to indicate that this is a criterion. I don't like the Super Bowl showing up on ITN either, but its age shouldn't matter. I'm sure if you gave me enough time, I can think of some event that people have been doing much longer but nobody wants to know about. I don't like American football, but I was just talking to an European who watches it. I don't think we're going to get much support for not including it; that seems to be the consensus. To answer your question, traditionalism is doing something only because it has always been done a particular way, and I find that incredibly inadequate as justification for anything. Jeois (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since there have been some requests to explain what the ITN/R criteria are (at least should be) and there have been some attacks against "too much sport" in general recently and here, let me try to explain. To people who don't follow sports, or a particular sport, yes it is mostly meaningless. To a person who doesn't follow politics, an election in some small, distant country is basically meaningless. And to a person who doesn't feel an intrinsic value to all human life, a natural disaster that kills a few people is basically meaningless. In other words, we should never be saying "I think care about this, so it is meaningless." Instead we should be judging the impact of the event to people who do care as evidenced by reliable source coverage.
When it comes to sports, many people plan their lives around their favorite team plays. They purposely avoid conflicting social engagements and may find ways to get out of family events when a conflict arises. When the team has a big game coming up, they are distracted and unable to be productive at work. When the team loses, they have trouble sleeping, thinking about what could have been done differently. When the team wins, they are elated. In other words, sports really do matter - they have a big impact on the real lives of real people. You can say this shouldn't be the case all the you, but you can't deny that it is the case. There is a reason that one of the 4-5 sections of a typical daily newspaper is devoted entirely to sports coverage. Think about it: ~20-25% of all RS coverage is devoted to sports.
So, what should the requirements for a particular sport to appear on ITN? The answer is that the sport/league has a large number fans, thus creating an effect on a large number of lives and the event attracts attention from those who would not normally follow the sport. (For example, championship typically draw in large number of people who would not normally watch the sport. This can be measured any number of ways from viewership figures, to press coverage, to advertiser sponsorship.) With very few exceptions, it will always be true that the impact a sporting event is almost entirely domestic in nature. Demanding huge amounts of international interest, ignores the very real and significant impact a sport has on its "home country".
If we are being honest, a mudslide that kills 20 people in Pakistan or the next president of El Salvador has no real impact on the lives of an average American, Australian, or Brit, yet we post these things because we acknowledge their importance to people in the region. Similarly, we should post sports that have a large impact on their home regions.
An ITN/R listing does not reflect greater importance - just that an event is regularly scheduled. The only requirement for ITN/R listing is that the event is likely to be posted each time it occurs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that sports events should be in ITN/R. However, I also believe that not all sports events are equally notable, and that not all sports events are notable enough to post. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, lest we migrate toward posting the results of every match globally. I, and probably many other removal comments, think the line falls somewhat short of this event, at least in regard to ITN/R inclusion. Mamyles (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a fair position to take (although naturally I come down on the other side). My comment is not aimed at all opposes, but rather the specific unreasonable arguments some offer such as "not professional", "not popular enough outside the UK", "should be replaced with rowing World Championship" or "too elitist" (and also the recent comments (mostly at ITN/C) that argue sports don't matter and/or are over-represented). None of those things matter - what matters is the importance people assign to the event. Here is a pretty good article explaining The Boat Race's appeal in the UK. Here's another and the fact that this made national news in connection with the Boat Race shows in a way just how wide reaching the impact fo the race is. Entire books have been written about some of the individual races: [2][3][4] --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I think it misses the points that we need to decide what is and isn't significant to post every year, and that we specifically are deciding if The Boat Race generates enough interest to be posted every year. I think it is a reasonable argument to say that things of interest mainly in one country should fall on the not-always-posted side of the line, and it doesn't make sense to me why you dismiss that specific argument as invalid (I personally don't think just being of interest in one country is enough on its own to exclude something, but is one factor to consider in making a decision on whether something should always be posted or not). Things that are of interest worldwide just seem like they naturally will have more total coverage and more total interest than things of interest primarily in one country. Furthermore, I think specifically for The Boat Race, as it isn't a championship of a league with competition taking place between multiple teams over multiple matches, it seems like the coverage and interest over a whole year would be less than many of the sports in ITN/R. Posting something like the Super Bowl of the Premier League championship represents not only the interest in the final game, but the interest from all the games in the whole season, and all the other coverage the leagues get over the whole year (e.g., who signed contracts with what teams, or what not). While I'm sure there is coverage related to The Boat Race outside covering the race itself, I don't think it is on the same scale as all the coverage a major sports league gets for a whole season. In my personal opinion, when you combine the factors of it being of primary interest in one country and that it isn't the championship of a season of competition, I think it falls just barely on the not-always-post side of where I would put the line for ITN. Calathan (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Most of what you say is fair. Certainly, the "a championship is really a posting for the entire season's worth of coverage" is an angle worth considering. There are many other events on the list (e.g. Kentucky Derby, The Ashes, Boston Marathon, 24 Hours of Le Mans, etc.) that aren't season-culminating championships, though.
However, the interest to primarily one country argument is generally disregarded on ITN/C (We even offer the following advice: Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.) so I don't think it has any merit in an ITN/R decision either. There are very few sports with meaningful "worldwide" followings, including most of the ITN/R list. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I know that being of interest to only one country is listed as an argument not to make at ITN/C, but in practice it is an argument people do make, so I'm not sure the guideline really reflects a true consensus. It seems more like wishful thinking on the part of people who think that shouldn't be considered. Calathan (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, people make invalid arguments in Wikipedia discussions of all kinds all the time. That is part of the reason we have admins to assess consensus and not vote counting robots. An admin can and should dismiss any "of interest only in X" vote at ITN/C wen assessing consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
In the case of the Boat Race, assuming it's "of interest to only one country" is completely ignorant. It's an international event from the rowers to the viewers to the sponsors. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying that no one outside Britain cares about it, but I think it is primarily of interest in Britain. I really think you are overestimating the worldwide interest because you yourself live in the country where it is held and are a fan of the race. It's true that I can't personally speak for the popularity of The Boat Race in most countries, and if any Wikipedians from other countries do think The Boat Race is popular where you live and could chime in, I could be convinced that I'm wrong. However, I don't think you can speak for the popularity in those countries either, and instead are just stating what you want to be true because you are a fan of the race and want it to be popular. I'm very certain it isn't at all popular in the US despite the fact that some rowers from the US participate (rowing in general is not a mainstream sport here). The fact that the best rowers in other countries go to Britain to compete in the race doesn't mean it is popular in those countries (in fact, I expect the opposite is true, and that people go to Britain to compete in The Boat Race because rowing is far more popular there than in their own countries). About a US company sponsoring it, that is because they do business in the UK, not because they think sponsoring it will somehow earn them money in the US. Calathan (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, rowing is vastly popular in small countries like the U.S., Australia, Germany, Italy etc etc, they want to compete in the Boat Race because of its hnique challenge and history. I give up, you and so many of yiur compatriots are just guessing and making stuff up about this that it has become overwhelming. You all win, honestly it's not that important to me, just keep on speculating, guessing, making stuff up and posting amateur women's basketball. Vive la difference, vive American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes; definite systemic bias issues here. It's too bad, really, that a lack of knowledge about this or simple dismissal of arguments carries so much weight. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding my comments here. You needn't explain the cultural significance of sports. I actually agree some sporting events should be included, but the question has always been: which ones? Again, I would oppose removal of the Super Bowl even though I don't watch it every year or particularly care about the results. I'm asking for more clearly defined criteria so we can stop arguing about this, or at the very least, have guidelines so we can focus our discussion on those instead of something arbitrary like media market penetration. For those supporting this particular event to be ITN/R simply because this has some kind of cultural impact, I would like to understand the methodology for which we decide the threshold of significance/notability. A large number of people going to a park and smoking marijuana has a cultural impact; next week, I don't expect someone to create an article summarizing these events occurring on the same date and nominate it for ITN/C, and since it happens every year, we wind up listing it ITN/R. A National Rifle Association conference draws tons of people, but nobody outside of the US cares about this (nor should they, imo). I can still find you a bunch of reliable sources that explain its impact to Americans. Therefore, I'm arguing that this cannot be the only criterion, although I agree it should be considered. Along these lines of reasoning, please don't be so dismissive of critiques of the inclusiveness of this event. When you get down to it, it's a rivalry between 2 university clubs and nobody else is represented, and a rule, they can never be. Jeois (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So a new rule, competitions with limited entry are not allowed on ITNR? You draw the line there, rather than, say, the World Series with, what, one competitor from outside the U.S.? You and many others keep conveniently overlooking the fact that anyone can participate in this event as long as they study at Cambridge or Oxford, and that's why it has so many international elite rowers involved and why it's sponsored by an American bank. But time for bed on this discussion. Take it from ITNR and cherish the results, enjoy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, you gave an example of a professional sports event which is organized by a national organization. (I've stated this criterion at least 4 times now; when are you finally going to get it?) Like the Boat Race, the players come from all over the world, but the difference is their appearance in the World Series actually shows they belong to a baseball team that is considered the best in the country through competition in a league. I'm not overlooking participation at all; it is exactly my objection. Now, we're getting into the realm of sports scholarships and barriers of entry into Oxbridge... but we can't have every American college football rivalry all listed ITNR. Moreover, you're the one who nominated the women's amateur basketball item you mentioned in a response above Jeois (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The only legitimate criteria are the two I outlined. Anything else is an artificial attempt to make things "easy" that doesn't reflect reality. Just because something is professional, doesn't make it more important. Nor does larger number of eligible participants. Those are things you may personally think make something important, but evidently the world at large does not strictly follow that reasoning. If the Olympics were still strictly amateur only, no one would doubt their worthiness of inclusion. The Ashes is a contest between two nations and is ITN/R. When we decide to make up our own criteria to decide what is important, we are no longer reflecting the world (neutrality), but rather substituting our (non-neutral) judgement. If we are going to override the world's judgement on importance, we better have a damn good reason to do so... The comparison to smoking pot or a NRA meeting is rather silly - those things may be important to their participants, but certainly are not followed by millions of fans or covered in hundreds of reliable sources.
I can't draw a firm line as to what is worth posting and what is not. It is a continuum from the World Cup/Olympics down to whatever we decide is the minimum impact we will accept. If you think the Boat Race is on the wrong side of the line, that is fine; what I am against is creating artificial rules like "professional only" or "top level only" or "wide participation only" in attempt to make decisions easier. The edge should be decided by consensus at ITN/C. ITN/R is only meant to reflect that something is likely to pass every year based on history, in order to avoid rehashing the same debate every year - nothing more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal – What User:ThaddeusB said. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Many of the comments made here are incredibly wrong and invalid.
"Interests a small group of enthusiasts." The race is watched by hundreds of millions of people on television and hundreds of thousands watch it along the River Thames each year. It is one of the most important events in the annual British sporting calendar and has been televised for nearly a hundred years.
"This traditionalism and elitism at it's worst." It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to right great wrongs. News stories should not be made to pass "ethic tests" based on how editors' feelings about the event. The vast majority of those who watch the race, either in person or on television, have never come anywhere near studying at Oxford or Cambridge, yet are interested nonetheless.
"Why post one of the Oxbridge varsity sports and not the others?" Because this is, by far, the most famous, popular and prestigious of them all. I agree it would be wrong to post the others.
"Heavily watched in Britain, but of niche interest elsewhere." Yes, it is hugely important in the UK, as you say, but not necessarily elsewhere. Many events are like this, though (even think about just the Super Bowl). WP:ITNC specifically states "do not complain about an event only relating to a single country ... this applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." If anything, why would you want to remove something that is "heavily watched" and important in Britain? Because you do not like it?
If these kinds of support comments from editors were removed, which closers should do, because closers focus on the quality of arguments, not just on the number of votes, it seems quite clear that there is consensus to keep the event at ITNR. In other words, the supports here are simply from those who do not like the event for personal reasons, which is a shame. The cries of elitism are somewhat embarrassing. Users should learn that items are not added or removed due to their personal feelings. (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You have indicated an oppose to removing the event, but have not included any reasoning behind that. Why do you believe that this event should be in ITN/R?
In regard to your comments about judging consensus, that some editors do not have fully articulated rationals is to be expected on both sides of any Wikipedia discussion. I would invite you to pose questions/comments to such opinions directly, perhaps with a {{Reply}} or {{Ping}}, rather than snipe at them in a TL;DR discussion. Mamyles (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh, the IP's response to the remove !votes are pretty clearly the IP's reasons for inclusion. (The race is watched by hundreds of millions of people, the most famous, popular and prestigious, it is hugely important in the UK, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: re-include EuroBasket[edit]

I dunno how was it removed, but after the recent college basketball discussion, it was pointed out that this European championship wasn't on the list. As this has 24 teams participating, the same number with football (and not like "six"), it implies there some interest to this from Europeans. –HTD 00:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

For reference, it was removed after this discussion. I imagine most World Championship feeder events have participation from most nations in their region, regardless of how popular to the sport is. I would thus like to see a better argument for inclusion than the number of nations sending a team. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. European Men's Handball Championship which isn't in ITNR, has 16 teams; compare to the 24-team 2015 World Men's Handball Championship where Europe got 12 teams, plus two wild cards because two teams outside of Europe couldn't even be bothered to sent a team after qualification. For a handball-mad continent such as Europe, that's quite a lot. Not quite as many as the UEFA Euros and EuroBasket, which has 24 teams. I believe these two have the most number of participants among continental championships in team sports on Earth. That implies massive interest in the sport on the continent. –HTD 01:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Reading the removal discussion, there were two issues: 1) "it's not popular in my country" (I'm willing to bet my life savings that "my country" is the "United Kingdom") and it's a feeder tournament. Guess what, FIBA EuroBasket 2015 has so many interwikis I'm too lazy to count, and I don't think the UK has the final answer on what gets to be popular in Europe. Also, every continental championship that has real qualification is ultimately "a feeder tournament" to something. The EuroBasket won't be a feeder tournament after 2015, so there's that. –HTD 01:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

General comment concerning ITNRs[edit]

A criticism often levelled at ITN is that we don't move along swiftly enough. We are not, and should never become, a news ticker, but there's currently a momentum towards removing items from ITNR rather than adding them. Of course, the net result is that we have a slower turnover at ITN. We currently have five items listed on the main page, two of which are eleven days old, and a push to remove the most recent from ITNR. Perhaps it's yet another one of those times where news is slow, but if we keep going this way, we'll have nothing to report at all, ever, and therefore what's the point in calling it "In The News"? Having more ITNRs would, at least, keep the section turning over, even if it was about netball..... In all seriousness, we should be looking for far more ITNRs than collating megabytes of arguments to remove them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

An excellent point, TRM. I agree. I also don't understand the desire to remove what is termed by some "lesser known" sports, which seems to present clear systemic bias issues. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
People want to remove one item, this is the only one that has been nominated for removal in last 6 months, few times even. That's not a momentum. SeraV (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the problem is with a declining number of quality nominations. Certainly there are more notable events out there that could be posted in those 11 days you mention (though perhaps not many with a quality article). I'll also note that removing items from ITN/R does not preclude those items from being nominated to ITN/C, just that they aren't guaranteed to be considered notable every time. Mamyles (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@TRM: what is the point of ITNR? To have items that get a get-out-of-ITNC pass or to bypass items that would generate SNOW-debates? Do you think oppose votes should be disregarded just because they were posted at a current ITNC discussion, and not in a lower-traffic ITNR archived discussion? Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in your comment relates to this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing in your sentence relates to my questions. Nergaal (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Who says ITNR is limited to SNOW cases? If an event routinely passes by a 2:1 margin, that is not a snow case, but it very likely pass every year. Furthermore, such a debate is especially likely to waste editor time, much more so than an item likely to pass 6-1 vote every time, ince the minority will try hard to win the debate and the majority will have to provide the same detailed responses every year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)