Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

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

Archives
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
Archive 16
Threads older than 14 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.

Proposal: Adjust failed launches listing[edit]

Given the current discussion about the failed Proton-M launch, I will propose changing the "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" to state "Failures of nonroutine rocket launches". People seem to be considering this recent failure not notable for its circumstances, so as satellite launches are the most common type of rocket launch, we shouldn't include that as a criteria. As stated in that discussion, ITNR is for those items that have clear consensus for posting every time; if we have to debate which rocket launches are notable and which ones aren't, then it's time to adjust something. I don't propose keeping "sufficient details to update" as that is a given for any nomination. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as it is accepted that ITNR provides establishes general classes of stories that are nearly always an ITN story with the occasional exception (which is how we treat nearly all policies and guidelines on WP), then there's no need to change a thing; most launch failures are still ITN, just that one of unmanned telecom satellite launch which resulted in no injuries was a minimal impact news story and more focused on the failing Russian program than the actual event. This is not to say that not all failures of nonroutine rocket launches are not ITN: if there were causalities from a failed launch, or like with that ISS delivery probe, if it didn't burn up on re-entry and seriously threaten to crash into a populated area of Earth, that would be ITN. This specific case, meh. I would rather we don't touch ITNR and recognize that there are occasional exceptions, than try to narrow down ITNR too specifically. ITNR was never a guarantee of automatic posting, even if the article quality was in good shape, as has been discussed many times before. --MASEM (t) 12:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Masem, most rocket launches are unmanned and most launch failures don't result in any injuries or drama. So what you are calling "occasional exceptions" seems to be most cases in reality. I don't see what the point of having something as ITNR is if we are, in most cases, not going to post it. Better to just leave it to ITNC. Formerip (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Then lets change the language to "failures of manned rocket launches", and be aware that failures of unmanned launches can be nominated as ITNC as necessary (for example, if a NASA or ESA interplanetary probe launching fails). Either way, I do agree with removing "where sufficient details are available to update the article" as that's implicit for ITN in the first place. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Masem's suggestion. If it were a launch failure that means the astronauts on the ISS are going to run out of supplies or something, that would be notable, but there is something off with the idea that it is our duty to put every unmanned rocket failure on ITN regardless of its independent notability. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I certainly don't see any reason to adopt "failure of manned rocket launches". That is so incredibly rare that an ITN/R is not needed. The item should either be removed entirely or something along the lines of what 331dot proposes be used: either his specific language or (probably better to define 'routine'): "Failures of rocket launches, excluding routine satellite delivery". --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I would have no problem with your suggested wording. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
My preference would be to remove it entirely, as I don't think a non-critical supply run to the ISS or another space facility is pro forma notable. Striking this item from ITN/R certainly doesn't mean we cannot and should not assess these incidents on a case-by-case basis. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer "excluding routine delivery" over removing failures entirely. That would cover both unmanned cargo and satellite vehicles. Mamyles (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with this proposal as a compromise solution. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I will be bold and make that adjustment, for now at least. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This strikes me as being a retrograde step: I can see what the intent is but is isn't what the rule says - it is utterly meaningless and can be twisted to mean anything. What counts as a "routine delivery"? In isolation that could cover virtually any space mission, satellite launches, space probes or even manned launches. It doesn't say what it is intended to cover and in that sense fails immediately. I will revert it because clearly more discussion is required: rules are rarely completely unambiguous but must at least give some sense of what they are trying to address.
More broadly I don't believe substantive action is needed at any rate. Yes, we've had a cluster of these recently, that happens: it is par for the course on ITNR. If anything the repeated nature of it makes each failure more notable, not less so. Consider the next resupply mission to the ISS fails and we don't cover it because, well, it's not notable any more. However, a week later it is announced that the ISS is being abandoned because it is no longer able to support its crew. This isn't far fetched - we have already had murmurings from individuals at various space agencies about the problems the resupply failures are already causing. It would also be a grave failure on our part, amounting to bolting the stable door just as the horse is about to come home. 3142 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally I don't disagree, and I attempted to make such an argument at the last discussion, but consensus didn't seem to agree with it; I proposed changing the listing as a compromise per my explanation above. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove Premier League[edit]

I'm not proposing to remove this because I don't like football or the Premier League, but because of this reason.

The NFL is the biggest league in American football, its interest far dwarves any other. The same can be said of MLB, NBA and NHL.

The Premier League is not a cut above other soccer leagues in the same way that NFL is by far bigger than other American football leagues in other countries. While the status of the American sports leagues as the biggest in their respective sports is long-established, there is frequent fluctuation in European soccer. The English league is not the current best, nor has it been dominant for greater time than other European leagues (per linked chart).

The solution would either have those four leading leagues (England, Spain, Germany and Italy) all ITN/R, which is ridiculous as they all finish around the same time and would clog the ITN box. Or remove all domestic leagues as there is none which is more established as the greatest than any other. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Premier League is the most watched league in the world of any sport. Even Google agrees. (Unless you consider F1 a "league", that is.) –HTD 17:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose just because other leagues aren't included, that shouldn't preclude the winners of the most popular league in the most popular game in the universe being included at ITNR. ITNR isn't about the "best" or most "dominant". Suggest this is swiftly closed as pointy just because La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A aren't included. Disappointing behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Pointy. Disappointing behaviour. For pointing out that one of four leagues which have different leaders in different fields is highlighted more than the other three? What about if the election of the American President was R but not the president of Russia and China? Wouldn't you ask for reform? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I already supported the inclusion of La Liga. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I suspect this is only "pointy" because the Premier League is British. Resolute 01:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think all 4 could and should be ITNR with the stipulation that the four should allways be as merged blurb. Therefore, at any given time they cannot take more than ITN entry. Nergaal (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most-watched football league and maybe sports league in the World. Many sports leagues compete for attention in USA. In England and lots of other countries soccer is completely dominant as spectator sport. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree singling out the Premier League is unjustified, but instead of eliminating it we should add other leagues - La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A. As Nergaal suggests, if they coincide a joint blurb can be used. We should remember that soccer is by a considerable distance the most popular sport in the world, so I don't think adding these leagues would give it an unreasonable number of entries. Neljack (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There's certainly too much sport in ITNR and I wouldn't want to see any more, however this is not the place to start trimming, and I say this as someone who can't stand the game. I disagree with the central assertion of the proposal that the leagues are equal. It may naturally appeal to our senses of egalitarianism but it has to be justified.
Let us consider one measure of interest in the respective leagues: TV revenue. This source[1] shows the state of affairs there and places the EPL a country mile ahead of any of the other leagues referenced. Sure, that isn't an ideal metric since national TV markets differ but international rights are a much more equal comparison. In the case of the EPL those amount to over 40% of the total, in other words, you can remove the lucrative domestic rights from the EPL and what is left is still greater than the total TV money of any of the others excepting the Italians.
You can argue about to what extent the leagues are equal until you are blue in the face but the money talks louder. TV execs know what audiences they can expect from the different national leagues in their marketplace - the fact the EPL is worth so much more to them shows that there is a lot more interest in this league than the others.
Finally there is the language argument I have used here before. Do not confuse ITN with article space where different standards apply - things like presenting a worldwide view that is wholly impartial to national interests do not necessarily apply here. Clearly we do not wish to be too insular but ITN serves to identify articles likely to be of interest to the readership. It is entirely justifiable to give some preference to Anglophone nations on the the English language Wikipedia. 3142 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal oppose more soccer Is this not enough soccer? Adding more soccer isn't the right answer. All these euro-leagues are essentially qualifiers for UEFA championship. Leave the EPL, it's old and it's popular and it's an English speaking country, but after that, what? The Spanish league? The German one? Take a look at world cup performers: Brazil, Germany, Spain, Italy, Argentina, Netherlands, France, Uruguay ... and also large countries where soccer is popular like Mexico and South Africa. Should all these countries national championships be posted? Where do you draw the line? How much Soccer is enough? Should the box just be renamed "In the Soccer"? Honest to goodness enough already. --36.75.112.225 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The line would seem to be drawn at the MLS cup, which was rejected below. I would note this is not just an encyclopedia for English speakers, but for all knowledge and information. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not taking about afd here, I'm talking about automatically featuring them on the main page of the en wiki. Let the es wiki feature the Spanish leagues, the de wiki feature the German leagues. Let the whole of all the different languages at wikipedia rejoyce in the majesty and wonder of the uefa final. Enough soccer. Enough. --36.83.148.114 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is merit to the argument that the Premier League is not the unquestioned top circuit of its sport, but it is the most popular, and certainly the most popular in English speaking countries. I don't see the lack of support for other major soccer leagues for ITNR as a strong argument for removing this one. Resolute 01:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: MLS Cup[edit]

"Baby it's cold outside". BencherliteTalk 13:12, 18 June 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.

If NBA Finals and Stanley Cup are going to stick around in the ITN/R, the MLS Cup should be as well. It is not as prominent nationally as those tournaments, but what the heck. Of course, there are numerous soccer (association football) tournaments listed in the ITN/R. Adding the MLS Cup isn't too much, is it? --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"X is on ITNR so Y should be" is not a very persuasive argument, especially when you concede that it is not that prominent a tournament nationally. 331dot (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
All right, I'll persuade further. Soccer is one of popular sports in the U.S. although not as much as other sports. Well, I don't care much for soccer, but winning the MLS Cup is attractive to Wikipedians, especially Americans, am I right? There might not be a big name soccer player in the US, but it's hella lot exciting, especially when the Spanish announcer yells "Gooooooooooollllllll!!!" in Spanish-language U.S. network. George Ho (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how your brain works but give it a bit of a rest. You hate sports. You especially hate American sports. That's fine. MLS is not a top soccer league. MLS is not a top American league. You are not even a fan so it makes no sense tat someone who hates it would want it added. Stop picking fights with others. People like sports. America has some of the best leagues. Just accept that fact. Correctron (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I like cricket, not the insect but the sport. Too bad it is not popular in the US and doesn't have prominent leagues or teams in the US. Well, I hate to admit that playing the 50-over game lasts about eight hours, which makes Americans reluctant to play or watch cricket. And I don't feel thrilled about 20-over games. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The sport of cricket isn't even known in a lot of places, FWIW. –HTD 13:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose In no way is MLS one of the top soccer leagues in the world. It's miles behind La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A, which are what we should be adding. 04:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Neljack (talk)
  • Oppose per Neljack. Considering your opposition to posting the NBA Finals, I wonder if this nom is WP:POINTy. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose In terms of North American soccer, MLS is the top league. However, MLS is not yet on the same level as the Big Four (NHL, NFL, MLB, NBA). Maybe we'll get there one day. Canuck89 (have words with me) 08:11, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor league. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Canuck; it just isn't yet to the level needed to pass automatic notability. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd imagine the MLS Cup is somewhere way, way, down in interest in the USA and Canada. Behind the Big 4 leagues, college football and basketball, NASCAR, college basketball and football conference championships heck even the CFL. I urge George to stop beating around the bush and nominate the NBA Finals off the ITNR. Go file a case to the proper authorities, but I'm not assuming good faith on this nomination, blocks be damned. –HTD 13:05, 18 June 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: Less restrictive rules on coronations and inaugurations[edit]

At present, our rules state:

Note that coronations, inaugurations, etc. are generally not posted.

This seems like a bad idea to me for several reasons:

  1. It means that blurbs have to be complicated, with two main stories vying for importance. "Queen Whoever II ascends the throne of Somewhereland following the death of King Whoever I" is just about manageable, but if the death of the old monarch is newsworthy too then things have to get very long. "King Whoever III ascends the throne of Somewhereland following the assassination of Queen Whoever II by Whateverist extremists at the Thingy Peace Conference." is dreadful, even if we rearrange it to make the assassination the main story ("Queen Whoever II of Somewhereland is assassinated by Whateverist extremists at the Thingy Peace Conference and King Whoever III ascends the throne.")
  2. Coronations and inaugurations can be very big news in themselves, and often take place a long time after the election/ascension. US Presidents are elected in November but inaugurated in February. Brenda took the throne in February 1952 but was crowned in June 1953. Tupou VI (the case that inspired this post) took office in 2012, but will only be crowned next week.
  3. Where we have articles about inaugurations/coronations, it's nice to get more eyes on them. Papal inauguration of Pope Francis isn't bad but could be improved, Second inauguration of Barack Obama is pretty solid and shows some of Wikipedia's best work.
  4. We don't really follow these rules consistently anyway. We posted both the announcement of the resignation of Beatrix and the investiture of Willem-Alexander, we posted the announcement of the abdication of Albert II and the ascension of Phillipe, and it's a virtual certainty that we'll post both the resignation or death of Elizabeth II and the coronation of Charles. I believe we posted the First inauguration of Barack Obama but not the second.

Therefore, I would suggest rewriting the rule to something like:

Note that coronations, inaugurations, etc. are not automatically considered important. Such a ceremony can be posted when it is the subject of significant press coverage or takes place a long time after the election or succession that precipitated it.

Smurrayinchester 08:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems unnecessary to make the text more complicated; it doesn't currently say that coronations are never posted, just generally not posted. I believe that is because most of the time they are a formality and the person's election/succession was (typically) posted. Yes, there are some that are more notable than others- which is why the text says 'generally'. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the note should be removed, and each item be considered on its merits, rather than an ITNR listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather see that than making the text more complicated. If merits are going to be judged anyway, there seems little point in saying that we usually don't do something but sometimes we do. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to see the sentence simply removed, as long as that doesn't cause more confusion that it solves. Smurrayinchester 11:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the sentence should be removed. There should be no presumption for or against such postings - they should be considered on their merits as news. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I also support removing the sentence so that such nominations can be considered on their merits. Neljack (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove. I agree with the above - it is unnecessary and each can be considered individually. (Also, I would imagine that every U.S. presidential inauguration is announced on ITN, but that's neither here nor there). Neutralitytalk 19:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Way too big of a focus on sporting events[edit]

As people always say on WP:ITN/Candidates, "Wikipedia is not a celebrity news ticker." WP is also not ESPN. ITN/R is dominated by recurring sporting events, just look at that monster list. Many of these competitions (e.g. NBA Finals, World Series) are very America-centric and are hardly relevant to a global audience. I think WP should omit sporting events from ITN outside of the Olympics and its billion-viewer audience, that's the only event with a truly global reach. It was only 1 or 2 weeks ago when over half of the stories in ITN were sporting events (French Open, NBA Finals, and some others) Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please nominate items you believe that should not be on ITNR for demotion. That's the only way to constructively progress your perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
More to the point, I recently proposed the idea (someone else's) to put all sports stories in an ITN sports "ticker," and while there was some support, the consensus ran against it. I suppose the name of this feature should be "In News and Sports" since that would be more accurate, as some weeks, sports dominate, which to me is a joke. Perhaps consensus will change someday. Jusdafax 08:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It isn't anyone's fault at ITN that many notable sports events occur at the same time; we can't speak to the leagues and tournament organizers and ask them to spread it out for Wikipedia. And regarding "America-centric", we have many single-country events on ITNR, not just from America- being from a single country is also not relevant(ITNC: Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one....) Removing all sports seems to be a perennial proposal- but if there are specific sports events you don't want to see, please nominate them for removal. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Can it be adequately demonstrated anywhere that these sports stories are stopping other non-sport stories from being featured? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
A large majority of team competitions on this list are centred around one or two countries, so the "America-centric" complaint is a bit off the mark when you consider the BPL, NRL, Boat Race, AFL Grand Final, etc. are also on the list. Looking over the list, I see about 16 entries that focus primarily on the US, though five of those are golf tournaments (3 majors and the 2 Europe vs. USA events). Nine United Kingdom, five Australia, three France and Eurozone, two each Canada, Japan, India. Resolute 13:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with a separate 'sports news' section, but I support the current position as well. Sporting contests are major cultural events with audiences and followings far beyond their immediate locations. I'd love to see somewhat broader cultural news as well, but the idea that we should drop sport altogether and have nothing but the most serious political stuff and disasters is not one I can support. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see (and have asked a couple of times) which stories these sports stories are keeping off ITN? Right now, we have a grand total of four blurbs at ITN, one of which is a sports item. We have items there that date back to 29 June. Trying to actively reduce the potential pool of candidates at this time makes no sense at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is it everyone (by everyone, that excludes yours truly and includes the thread starter) notices (by notices, meaning complains about) the NBA Finals and World Series but not the just-as-wildly-followed All-Ireland Football Championships and AFL? Don't tell me more people worldwide play Gaelic and Australian rules football than basketball or baseball. –HTD 22:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The OP's complaint is invalid because many people who are not the OP care about sports. What the OP cares about is irrelevant, Wikipedia should reflect what the world-at-large cares about. And they are interested in sports. --Jayron32 00:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Arguably, no we don't following what the world-at-large cares about, otherwise we'd be filled with celebrity and entertainment news too. We do take a more academic approach, which does include sporting results, hence why it might seem out of balance, but it's also a field where nearly all events are known and planned out months/years in advance and on a regular schedule to prepare for it at ITNR. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are lots of sports entries on ITNR. But that's largely because sporting events are scheduled ahead of time and have similar importance each time they occur, so can easily be assessed in advance. That is not true of many other categories of story posted on ITN. If you have examples of e.g. other awards, meetings or regular events that you think should be on ITNR, please nominate them. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)