Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

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

[Added] Proposal: Include women's events when simultaneous with men's (and vice versa)[edit]

ITN/C amended by User:Smurrayinchester. Stephen 03:36, 8 April 2016 (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.

Above, people suggested making the presence of a men's sport event automatically qualify the female event too. This, it was argued, would put undue weight on some obscure events - especially because in some cases, the women's events are amateur while the men's are professional, or the women's events are orders of magnitude smaller. Therefore, I'm suggesting a tighter proposal: when a men's event and women's event are held as part of the same competition, both qualify. This is already an explicit rule for tennis and badminton, and it seems to be de facto practice for marathons; in addition, we would now post the women's Boat Race, both men's and ladies' overall at the FIS Alpine Ski World Cup, and both the men's and women's road races at UCI Road World Championships. This only applies where there is an explicitly gendered award, of course - we wouldn't post the most successful male and female drivers in a Formula 1 race, for instance, because the award is only "best driver". Smurrayinchester 11:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I think we already do this in most cases where the two competitions are part of the same event(including with The Boat Race this year now that the races are on the same day in the same location, despite concerns that the notability of both is not equivalent). I'm not sure we need to write it down but I don't oppose doing so. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm also not opposed so long as the article quality of both articles is sufficient for the main page. --Jayron32 12:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this works out pretty well, especially with the specification that it has to be during the same competition. The Boat Race is, as mentioned, would be a prime example as it shows such events can be worked into the blurb pretty easily. From what I'm gathering this affects a relatively small pool of articles so it shouldn't be terribly invasive. I also think having this written down within the rules somewhere will help solidify this and avoid most complaints (but probably not all) about notability issues. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Not opposed to this. As pointed out, it will draw attention to articles that otherwise would not receive such attention due to systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • What everyone else has said for a few extra words, while keeping in mind the quality argument made by Jayron, this can make a nice difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In principle this is a fine idea, but is there a way to feature it without having a blurb that is implying the two events are of the same caliber (i.e. when the prize pool is different)? While systematic bias exists, I think overcompensating does the same thing in the opposite direction. Nergaal (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I guess using some kind of guideline like this one, I think equal prize pool championships should be both featured, but there should be some sort of tiering for the non-"equal" sports. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how useful that is. The ones where the prize money differs are almost all separate tournaments. The exception is the Red Bull Cliff Diving World Series, which isn't ITN/R, but if it was, I think posting the men's and women's results would still be justified (in the 2016 one, men and women mostly compete in the same events, but the men's season has a few more dives and a couple of men-only events at the start of the season). Smurrayinchester 08:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the original idea is fine (emphasizing Jayron's caveat), no need to compare prize pools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of the above comments. It takes minimal space and effort to include and would match the style of several other events. Regarding the above concern from Nergaal, may I say that I think perhaps we should begin moving past the idea that posting something to ITN implies a value judgement or "worthiness" of a news item. - OldManNeptune 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that as long as the events are near simultaneous, both men's and women's sides should be documented as ITN --MASEM (t) 15:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with original proposal with the usual caveats on articles quality. -- KTC (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording[edit]

Ok, it's clear that we are happy with the idea proposed above. But it needs to be enshrined in words that we can point at to help our admins and other editors when making decisions on blurbs and what to post hereinafter. As the proposer, I'd like to invite Smurrayinchester to propose some words we can add to the ITN instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Easiest would be to change the current text to "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (where applicable) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified." Smurrayinchester 08:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been about a week, so I've added this text (with "where applicable" changed to "when simultaneous" for clarity") - if anyone has any changes to the wording, feel free to revert and discuss here. Smurrayinchester 12:26, 4 April 2016 (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.

[Added] Proposal: Add NCAA basketball championship[edit]

Consensus to add NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship to ITNR. BencherliteTalk 08:49, 20 April 2016 (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.

The arguments for having this item on ITNR are very similar to that for having The Boat Race on ITNR. Both are events involving only students of certain universities. Both are high (albeit not top) level competitions. Both attract mass media coverage. Both have national cultural significance. We discussed The Boat Race just a couple of sections above this one, and since that discussion resulted The Boat Race remaining on ITNR I don't see why this should not be on ITNR as well.

Previous discussions on this graciously linked by Muboshgu on the ITNC nomination: [1] [2] [3] [4]

For the record I am on a personal level opposed to both items being on ITNR; however since consensus was for The Boat Race to remain on ITNR then I believe for consistency the NCAA basketball championship should also be on ITNR. Banedon (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we should focus on the active nom at ITN/C before this. But I wholeheartedly support this being added to ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It would be better to wait until after this year's dust settles - a productive discussion will be easier when there isn't a current item on the line. Do you me is we close this for now, @Banedon:? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Re-opening this, as the ITN/C nomination is now complete. Support adding this to ITN/R based on the consensus formed in ITN/C, and that this has been posted now for three years running.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Support per rational of Boat Race to avoid systematic bias and to highlight stories that do see appropriate updates and readership views. Should we assume the women's NCAA title is also included on this per recent discussion on these type of events? --MASEM (t) 15:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The women's tournament is not in the same location(or locations) as the men's so they are different events(unlike the Boat Race). 331dot (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Summarizing my TLDR response in the above hat: Support. If you want to know why, open the hat. --Jayron32 16:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, for the same reason I backed it on the main ITN/C page a few days ago: this is one of the highest levels of the sport, and of great cultural significance. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It's gone up for the last three years, as it should for an event of its magnitude. The annual argument over collegiate sports in the US is a blight on ITN and quashing that argument permanently by making this recurring would be a relief. - OldManNeptune 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support frankly I'm sick and tired of the comparison between the Boat Race and this event, there are a few parallels but nothing that really means if you post one, you must post the other. It's becoming far too time-consuming and non-profitable to have read the swaths of text from the angry Americans who don't "get" the Boat Race and the non-Americans who don't "get" the NCAA (or other college sports in the US). If the article is decent, and it is (and has been, much like the Boat Race) and if it's popular with our readers (although the final page doesn't get many hits, the overall tournament seems to get a few), and it's been posted for the past few years, then so be it. My parting shot is that don't forget we only have one rowing ITNR, this NCAA tournament will become the fourth basketball ITNR. For the sake of stories hitting the main page for a few days, perhaps we all need to be a little more circumspect, and less jingoistic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - As I understand it, "college" (US) = "university" (UK). That the event has been posted three years running shows there is consensus for it to appear, so let's formalize the situation and add it to ITN/R. If article quality threshold is not met, then it won't get listed. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Posted three years in a row indicates this consistently merits posting; the arguments for posting don't need to be restated. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support - the time for NCAA basketball to be listed on ITN/R has come:
  1. Basketball has a strong claim on being the world's second most popular sport, behind only (association) football. There are professional leagues throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, and of course North America. It has the most national organization of an Olympic team sport, narrowly eclipsing even football. (It is a minor sport in the UK, but the UK is the exception here.) See also statistical analysis that agrees with this conclusion.
  2. ITN/R currently lists 2.5 basketball items/year, compared to, for example, 4+ for rugby, which no one would argue is more popular. So, there is room for another item.
  3. More importantly, than the sport's popularity, the cultural impact of NCAA basketball goes well beyond the sport itself. In honesty, most sports' finals are followed only by fans of the sport. That is not true of NCAA basketball, which is finds significant interest from people who normally don't follow basketball or even sports in general. The only other events in the US which definitely do that in significant numbers are the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby, and the Olympics, which are all listed on ITN/R, of course.
  4. The NCAA tournament is typically the third most watched sporting event in the US, ahead of ~10 events that are listed on ITN/R. We shouldn't be putting our judgment of "importance" ahead of the public's judgement.
  5. And perhaps most important of all, the tournament has been listed 5/7 years. Most recently, it has been listed with fairly strong consensus. It is very likely to be listed almost every year going forward, regardless of ITN/R status. There are those that really hate that fact and will raise a huge stink about it, wasting editor time arguing. The purpose of ITN/R is to avoid such unnecessary arguments from reoccurring every year.
--ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose My observation is that in the grand scheme of sports NCAA championship is an obscure thing, despite claimed viewership and following in the US. Presently, ITNR lists three basketball events, all of them of international significance, while winning NCAA championship confers only local notability upon a basketball player. I doubt that a non-US reader would recognize such competition as easily as all other basketball events at ITNR. Other than that, I doubt that in terms of physical performance college basketball approaches the level of play at, say, FIBA Basketball World Cup. Even if I end up in minority here, the good thing is that we would avoid repeated skirmishes at ITN about posting it. Brandmeistertalk 15:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It requires a certain level of self-serving hypocrisy to argue that one country's college event deserves ITNR but not another's. That said, I oppose The Boat Race, and I oppose this one too. Resolute 15:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Except that not other country treats their college sports on the same level. Stop with the false equivalencies.Correctron (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Support since we can't win in the opposition of the inclusion of The Boat Race, it is absolutely fair to include this and NCAA Division I Football if we include TBR since they are taken more seriously by the general public and I'm not an American. Donnie Park (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I think "taken more seriously" is pure OR but at the same time I can't help but smile at your inability to discuss any of this without any kind of reference to the Boat Race, which clearly pisses you off! Get over it, and try to think of our readers, tens of thousands of whom picked up the Boat Race article this year, far more than you'd like to believe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Boat Races had 15000 one day and 12600 the next. College Football had 95000. So...Correctron (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
So? Kim Kardashian had more than that. What's that got to do with "taking it seriously"? Get a real answer or don't bother contributing. On second thoughts, that's a moot point. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I know you wanted to defend your Boat Race so much since most of the articles are done by you but who wouldn't want to defend their own Wikipedia works. In defence of Correctron EA had a videogame franchise based on college football, so has your beloved boat race, Mr Oxford Lawyer? Donnie Park (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It most definitely was not Oxford, and certainly not law. Nice try though. And if you believe a video game is a sign of encyclopaedic notability, you'll have to pardon me from not taking anything you ever write here again seriously! You kids will buy anything these days! Toodle pip. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB and AlexTiefling. Neljack (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as every other university sporting event (for what it's worth I also oppose posting the Oxbridge boat race). This is by no means the top level of the sport, it is only open to students at certain universities, and the teams included are an arbitrary selection of a panel rather than decided on objective results. We should restrict ourselves to the top professional competitions in each sport, not limited amateur imitations. I find the argument of media attention to be spurious - we don't post celebrity gossip just because lots of outlets are covering it. Modest Genius talk 10:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It isn't just media attention, but the fact these are significant cultural events that draw a great deal of attention. When the POTUS calls a press conference to announce his basketball tournament bracket picks, there is clearly strong interest in the event. These also are indeed 'top level' college competitions. It's just a different league per se, not a lower level. A lower level would be the NCAA Division II basketball tournament. I would add that college basketball and college football usually draw larger crowds than the respective pro sports. The largest capacity stadiums in the US are college football stadiums(Michigan Stadium). 331dot (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
To add, consider that scouting and recruitment of skilled basketball and football players from high schools and middle schools is extremely common. The NCAA Div I schools put significant money to developing these programs and having the financial resources to draw these students to their schools so they can get more money from alumni and sponsors by having the best players they can recruit. It is not a professional league but it is operated as close to one could envision in that environment, that players are not just randomly selected from their student pool but highly filtered and screened. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Just because people take it seriously doesn't change the fact that it's not the top level of the sport. You could say the same things about investment and scouting for the Football League Championship (more so in fact), but we don't post that for obvious reasons. 'Top college' is irrelevant - it's not the top level of basketball. We don't post every variation of rules or eligibility of a sport, such as the top amateur tennis tournament, top Sunday league football or the top rugby sevens. The fact that the current president is a fan doesn't change my opinion one iota. NCAA, in all sports, is an amateur student competition that is not the top level - they should never be posted. Modest Genius talk 11:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Where does this insistence on "top level" come from? E.g. are you suggesting we remove Six Nations from the rugby union section of ITN (it's not the World Cup, after all, so it's not top level), the NBA Finals (it's not the FIBA World Cup, so not the top level), all the "selected" marathons (what makes those that are selected "top level" to you and not the others?) and what makes both Formula One and Indy Car both "top level" in the same sport? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
ITN has restricted itself to the top level sporting contests since its very inception. Sometimes there is more than one event at the top level, and some sports get more than one item so take the top X events, but that doesn't change the underlying principle. I don't think this is a useful place to discuss whether that is the right approach; the point is simply that it has been the ITN approach forever. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
That may be your recollection, but I don't see that enshrined anywhere in the ITNR items. In fact, most of the initial ITNR items were just added by a couple of editors on a whim. So let's not start pretending to get all nostalgic and claim some kind of restriction of top level. ITNR is about newsworthy items. They may not be at the top level. They may have had their notability discussed ad infinitum and every year be published and every year please our readers (for it is them we serve). If I'm reading the right stats, the last NCAA tournament had nearly a million hits. It was both encyclopedic and interesting to our readers (for it is them we serve). Strikes me a lot of people are acting as fake gatekeepers to this encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I said ITN, not ITNR. Anyway this discussion has become unproductive so I don't see any point in continuing it any further. Modest Genius talk 12:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, but be sure: ITN has never restricted itself to top-level sports. It works on consensus and quality, that's it. I would have thought you'd have known that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: I guess we will just have to disagree about what constitutes 'top level'(though I agree with TRM's sentiment about 'top level'). The NCAA is just a different league. We don't post the NBA D-League because it is indeed a 'lower level' of the sport, just as we don't post the Div II tournament. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting you are mentioning the D-league as a 'lower level' league, when D-league teams will most likely kill the NCAA champ. EVERY American player on ANY D-league team is a former NCAA star, while even the best NCAA teams have 6-10 role players with no chance in professional basketball. Taking a WP:WORLDVIEW, Eurobasket, EuroLeague, Liga ACB etc. are all generally considered better competitions than the NCAA. Timmyshin (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I recognise that consensus is clearly against me here, but I still find the arguments for NCAA being an important competition to be entirely spurious. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
They're only spurious because you disagree with the conclusions. There's only two ways to measure importance: 1) "What I care about" and 2) "What we can show is important to reliable sources because of the level and depth of coverage of the event". The arguments for inclusion of any item on ITN or ITNR based on importance are only spurious if your measure of importance is definition 1) and if you entirely disregard definition 2). However, Wikipedia in general has an ethos of favoring definition 2) in all aspects, that's why it has policies like WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V and many others. --Jayron32 12:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still think to remove all the perennial discussions about these sporting events that some regard as extremely important but others scoff at is to simply incorporate the less notable sporting events into the "recent events" section of the page. I think many users will be receptive to the event being a singular link rather than a whole "blurb". Colipon+(Talk) 14:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Colipon: Do you mean 'Ongoing events'? Your suggestion would be a significant change in the scope of that line, which was not meant for sports events in progress, but to feature an article that is being incrementally updated(and where each individual update would not merit posting, but they would collectively). That would probably need to be discussed separately. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I do mean "ongoing events". I think my proposal fixes almost all the perennial issues at ITN, but I am very pessimistic about raising that as a separate discussion since the 'culture' at ITN seems to throw out "oppose" and "support" liberally without addressing the overarching issues in a consensus-driven process. Colipon+(Talk) 20:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - NCAA basketball (aptly known as March Madness) is more popular in the US than the NBA, the most high profile professional basketball league in the world, and that says something. And March Madness office pool has become a cultural phenomenon. Leaving this out of ITN/R while keeping numerous less popular events makes absolutely no sense. -Zanhe (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose NCAA being more popular than the NBA in the US is definitely a myth. In America, March Madness is very comparable to the NBA Playoffs in ratings. As an example, 2016 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game scored 17.8 million viewers, while the 2015 NBA Finals averaged 19.9 million per game. March Madness is not equivalent to NCAA basketball, it's only the year-end tournament for Division I NCAA basketball. Even if we don't consider Division II and Division III, the NBA destroys the NCAA in average rating/attendance in regular season. Only a few teams like Kansas can compete with the NBA in terms of popularity. Some of the mid-major teams only see a couple hundred people per game, while even the worst NBA team (76ers) averages at least 10,000 people. Outside of the US, frankly, the NCAA receives no mainstream coverage or interest, except in maybe the Philippines or Canada, but even in those places the NBA is far more popular. Basketball is a highly popular global sport, and the failure to be broadcast internationally already indicates a lack of global appeal. In my opinion, there are only 2 universally important basketball events, the NBA and the Olympics. March Madness shouldn't show up on this page if one takes a WP:WORLDVIEW. Timmyshin (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    From the ITN standards, which have been posted at WP:ITNC since time immemorial, "Please do not...oppose an item because the event is 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." --Jayron32 11:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed; if global interest or global appeal was required, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Why are you bringing up Divisions II and III? Nobody's trying to add the lower level championships to ITNR. The proposer probably didn't make it clear in the section title, but we're only talking about the final results of the year-end tournament for Division I NCAA basketball (emphasis yours). -Zanhe (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2016 (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.
  • So, to be clear, are we not adding the women's tournament too(despite the previous discussion on that issue)? They are technically different events(unlike others as I noted above). 331dot (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • No, because (1) there was no proposal to add the women's tournament, so they are not covered by a specific consensus, and (2) they are not covered by the general consensus, which is "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified, because they are not simultaneous events. BencherliteTalk 10:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Blizzards, earthquakes, volcano eruptions and other natural disasters[edit]

No consensus for the inclusion of any of these items at ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2016 (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.

How come these aren't on ITNR? I'm very surprised they're not there in some shape or form. It's arguable that the magnitudes of the natural disasters is a critical factor (so e.g. a magnitude 4 earthquake may not be worth posting), but while the exact line is something that might be discussed, to not have e.g. a magnitude 8 earthquake on ITNR is something that's still very surprising to me. Banedon (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

They aren't "recurring", for the most part. At least not in any predictable manner that ITNR is meant to cover. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, but ITNR also has events like discovery of new scientific elements and launch of manned orbital spaceflights, which aren't recurring either except in the weak sense ("another spaceflight will probably be launched in the next five years"), but then these natural disasters also recur in the weak sense. Banedon (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Going by magnitude alone is pointless. We need to assess the impact of the earthquake, for example a low magnitude quake in a densely populated area will be far more devastating and newsworthy than a higher magnitude quake in a sparsely populated region. Some volcanoes erupt all the time, others have one big bang every millennium. Their newsworthiness needs assessment on a case-by-case basis. Blizzards take place all the time all around the globe. What constitutes a bright-line over which a blizzard becomes automatically notable enough for ITNR? It's not possible to generically define that. That's precisely why each event needs to be assessed individually which makes these events entirely unsuitable for ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose per TRM who said it better than I probably could. If things like this are ITNR, then everything might as well be. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. Every new scientific element is important enough to mention, no matter how infrequently they are found. Every manned spaceflight - the same. Every blizzard, earthquake, volcanic eruption or "other natural disaster"? No. You can't formulate an easily applied rule, which is what ITNR needs. Significant disasters get posted without difficulty already. This suggestion is a problem in search of a problem. BencherliteTalk 10:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, if a blizzard / earthquake / volcanic eruption etc is not notable, it wouldn't have an article. Banedon (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
ITNC does not just weigh notability, but judgements about what is notable enough for the Main Page. We are not a news ticker and do not post every notable event. If you want to make ITN just post everything that has an article, please propose that. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
That applies to every nomination, including items that are currently on ITNR. Are you suggesting we dispose of ITNR then? Banedon (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
ITNR indicates that the judgement about notability has already been made, not that it isn't made at all. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe 331dot has suggested disposing of ITNR at any point. If that's what you suggest Banedon, feel free to start (yet) another discussion here. The mass and arbitrary inclusion of all "Blizzards, earthquakes, volcano eruptions and other natural disasters" is what's being discussed here, and it's clear there's not a jot of appetite to include it at ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Do Blizzards recur? I'm not sure they do; they're rather capricious and random... --Jayron32 11:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The blizzard itself, no, but similar events do, e.g. North American blizzard of 2005 and North American blizzard of 2006. Volcanic eruptions can be argued to recur, as does the Southeast Asian Haze. Banedon (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but their impact is the importance, and that can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Those events are not recurring. There is not a schedule of expected future blizzards. However, we do know when the next U.S. Presidential Election will be and when the next Olympics will be. That's what makes those events on ITNR because they R... --Jayron32 12:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The precise dates of most general elections are not known, compare e.g. Next Dutch general election. We only know it must happen by a certain date. That does not stop elections from being ITNR. There are lots of uncertainties right now in some ITNR items as well, e.g. the date of discovery of the next element is not known. We might be able to say "chances are it will happen in the next two years", but then we can also make statements like "chances are there will be a big earthquake in the next five years". Currently meteors and great comets are listed as ITNR, but the section itself says "meteors and comets are impossible to predict...". Banedon (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The "MISSING THE POINT" klaxon is going off now. We don't and won't post " Blizzards, earthquakes, volcano eruptions and other natural disasters" because it's not their occurrence which is significant enough for ITN, it's their impact. And that can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Now, please, drop the stick. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There are no ITNR items relying on a limit like "earthquakes above magnitude x" or "natural disasters with more than x deaths". Such limits are poorly suited for ITNR. We could have long discussions about where to place the limit, but the impact of an event depends on many other things. It's better to discuss the individual events when they are nominated. Regarding your magnitude 8 example, 2013 Okhotsk Sea earthquake was 8.1. It had no deaths, wasn't nominated, and would probably have been rejected. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Proposal add the Indianapolis Prize winner[edit]

Closed per creator's request. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2016 (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.

This BBC news article (and a few others) describe the Indianapolis Prize as 'the Nobel prize for conservation' - I do see that J._Paul_Getty_Award_for_Conservation_Leadership might also have some claims to that title - but a quick google search suggest it has not been awarded since 2009 - so presumably the Indianapolis Prize becomes the defacto Nobel prize for conservation - and as such should probably appear in ITN/R (I've no vested interest in the article, I'd only heard of the prize as I saw a newspaper article but it seemed like I should have heard of the prize, and this suggestion will potentially rectify that lack of awareness EdwardLane (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Has the prize ever been featured at ITN through the regular ITNC process? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know an easy way to search the archives for that - I was considering proposing it for the current year but I'm not good with blurbs - if you wanted to put it forward I'd support it if the page contained some more of the content from the news articles EdwardLane (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm only repeating what the reliable sources say (calling it the Nobel for conservation)- but yes you may be correct if there is such a prize, in which case you should perhaps nominate those too/instead for ITN/R ? EdwardLane (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) My spider-senses tingle when someone starts describing something as "the Nobel Prize" of X. It's a great way for prize organizers and journalists to get name recognition with little effort. In fact, the people who call it this are those who award it and win it, and then everything else seems then to be lazy journalists churning the same "widely regarded as the Nobel Prize" line in an echo-chamber of press releases and back-slapping. For example, the 2014 prize winner called it this in a piece about the 2014 finalists [5] and in a press release about the 2016 finalists [6], and understandably so - who wouldn't want to "big up" a prize that you'd been shortlisted for or given? The president of the Indianapolis Zoo, which is behind the award, called it this too [7]. Now there's a surprise! Let's see how this fares at ITNC before we start adding it to ITNR. It is perfectly possible for a field of activity not to have a Nobel Prize equivalent, of course. BencherliteTalk 11:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting point - and perhaps justified, I do think there should be a Nobel prize for conservation - and that prize whatever it is called should be on ITN/R , and the Indianapolis prize might not be the correct prize (?) but some journalist (lazy or otherwise) has singled this prize out as a possible contender (presumably much like originally happened for the Nobel prize when it first became famous). If there are other contenders in this field which could be considered as the 'equivalent of the Nobel prize' can you suggest them, and then perhaps whichever is the 'most reported' or some other similar criteria could be used to decide which prize should be ITN/R ? EdwardLane (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on your edit summary "Which prize SHOULD...", the answer should be "Which prize has, in past years, consistently had quality articles and widespread support at WP:ITNC. The answer, of course, should include "none" among the options... Of course, I've long advocated for making ITNR principles apply to every nomination, and focus our primary judgement on article quality, but insofar as we don't do that, we should base ITNR decisions on objectively measurable criteria such as how often we have postings on the subject, and how much prominence it gets in the news on an annual basis. --Jayron32 12:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst I'm not opposed to featuring more conservation on ITN, this prize does not have widespread influence or media interest. A puffery comparison to the Nobels does not make this of similar importance or justify adding it to ITNR. You could try nominating the next prize at ITN/C, though I'm not sure if it will pass. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
OK looks like consensus is opposed - so someone more experienced with these things should probably close this EdwardLane (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2016 (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.

A possible addition for Discoveries / Science[edit]

I would like to propose, though I don't have cemented wording for this, that scientific discoveries that

  1. are the result of a paper recently published in a peer-reviewed journal (perhaps requiring a journal with a high impact factor or similar measure of importance)
  2. are reported in at least 3 major general-interest mainstream newspapers/news networks (the likes of BBC, NYtimes, WAPost, The Guardian, and a handful of others).

should be considered ITN/R. One of the issues with scientific discovery reporting is that this usually isn't captured by mainstream media, and thus scientific areas rarely get much main page space to start; science topics are thus disproportionately undercovered relative to other topics that easily get broad coverage. If a scientific discover is noted by the media - using the metrics above - this is usually a good sign that it is sufficiently interesting to put on the front page and leading readers to it. Note that I do expect that all article quality, updates, and sourcing metrics on the topic article(s) are there.

A couple notes:

  • I do want to avoid coverage that is primarily through popular websites or magazines that are scientifically oriented, like Phys.org or Popular Mechanics, which are going to cover these stories anyway. The sources I suggest are broad news sources that when they touch on science, they do try to cover it for the average Joe, making them good sources and indicators.
  • I don't know if we need to necessarily codify the weight of the journal's impact factor, as really I've only seen mainstream news coverage of these types of reports primarily coming out of journals like Nature (which has one of the highest factors). That is, the mainstream's choice of news to cover is usually already implicitly incorporating the impact factor.

My choice of wording may not be perfect either, I'm only opening debate to see if there's legs on this. If there is, we can firm up and simply the language. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

One added note: I have no idea of the hard numbers of how many stories this adds per year to ITN/R, but my guess would be from past ITN/C nominations, we're looking at around 10-12 stories per year. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this somewhat similar to the 'earthquakes' section above, that these stories are not recurring and each will have to be judged on its merits and impact? I think we should just get more science stories nominated, they do seem a rare occurrence. Stephen 23:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Not quite. Earthquakes are rare, but if they are generally over a 4-5 magnitude they'll get covered in all major papers (though obviously the degree will be varied based on impact on human life). So we need a means to distill which quakes are important and thus why not a regular ITNR. On the other hand, when science news happens in major papers, it is generally rare representing the importance of the scientific discovery, at least when NYTimes is reporting it compared to Phys.org. Its not a matter of that so many could happen and we need to important ITN-post the important ones, just that they rarely get covered in mainstream in detail to start. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most fundamentally, such discoveries are not recurring events and therefore do not fall within the purview of ITN/R. But there are other problems too, particularly around the vagueness of the criteria, which would likely provoke endless arguments.
What are "general-interest mainstream newspapers/news networks"? There are surely a lot more than "a handful" of them in the world (there are, after all, almost 200 countries). I am sure there will be lots of stories covered by at least three of these many outlets.
Do these criteria cover social sciences e.g. economic, sociology, criminology, political science? What if the discovery is disputed or other scientists express strong doubts? How can we neutrally capture this in a short blurb?
Ultimately I think that reason we don't post a lot of science news on ITN is that we correctly consider that neither us nor the media is very good at assessing the reliability and significance of supposed scientific breakthroughs. We have seen this a number of times at ITN, which stories have been posted and then editors with greater scientific knowledge have brought to our attention matters that call into question whether the story ought to have been posted. So I am not convinced that we should seek to feature more science news - not because it isn't important, but because we don't have the ability to reliably determine when it is important. Neljack (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack; not recurring events. If such an event gets the coverage listed as the proposed criteria, it would likely be posted anyway, so I see little point in writing it down. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Olympics[edit]

This is for future reference in 2018 when the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics will be held:

During the last 2014 Winter Olympics, a proposal on WP:ITN/C to post the results of the Olympic Men's ice hockey tournament on ITN ended up being rejected. The common objection was that we should not single out one particular event out of all the other Olympics sports, despite the fact that Olympic ice hockey is still currently listed here on WP:ITNR, or that it may be the "most watched" or "most important" event. Subsequently, a discussion to actually remove it from here ended in no consensus.

Monitoring WP:ITN/C during the recently completed 2016 Summer Olympics, there are signs that the wider consensus on WP:ITN/C could once again reject the posting of the Men's Olympic ice hockey in 2018:

  • The posting of the 2016 Women's 100 metres and Men's 100 metres were rejected. The general opinion of those who opposed on WP/ITN/C basically repeated the same argument as in 2014 that one event should not be singled out even if it may be the "most watched" or "most important" event. The one who closed that discussion wrote, "This is why we have Ongoing and why the Olympics are listed".[8]
  • Nominations for separate Olympic records was also rejected.[9][10][11] The common reason was, again, the link on the Ongoing line.
  • A notice was then posted at the top of WP:ITN/C,[12] warning that such future nominations would likely be WP:SNOW rejected, referencing the previous failed nominations and the Ongoing link.
  • Since the Ongoing links were frequently cited in the above points, it should be noted that it was not proposed until April 2014, two months after the Sochi Olympics. After a trial, Ongoing became permanent around May 2014 (per discussion).

Granted that consensus may change in two years, but precedent has been set both in 2014 and now in 2016 on WP:ITN/C not to single out one specific Olympic sport, whether it is Athletics and the 100-metre races, specific Olympic records, or ice hockey. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • As I explained in the discussion in 2014, the rationale for singling out the hockey tournament seems to be that it is the top level of international play, even more so than the world championship, as NHL players (from around the world) typically play, which isn't the case for the world championship- as well as greater news coverage(even within Olympic coverage). That may not be the case in 2018 due to a dispute over who should pay expenses. In the cases of the other events listed above, the same people (generally) participate in both they Olympic event and the world championships of the event. All that said, as pointed out by Zzyzx, we now have Ongoing which we didn't have for the Sochi games. I'm wondering if we should wait until close to 2018 to decide(maybe when a decision is made by the NHL on making their players available or not). I'm neutral as of right now. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)