Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

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

[Closed] Suggestion to add: Jules Verne Trophy[edit]

No consensus to add this to ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2017 (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 is currently related to an ITNC, but I believe that any win of the Jules Verne Trophy (given to the yatching crew that holds the fastest time for circumnavigating the globe) would be an appropriate ITNR. Since its creation the award has only changed hands less than dozen times, so we're talking about one story every 4-6 years , though there's clearly no regularity towards it. To be clear, this should only be ITN when the Musée national de la Marine in Paris affirms the record and awards the trophy, and not after a crew claims they broke the record (as the current ITNC stands) --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose how many times has this been posted in the past? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Within the period that ITN has existed, it has only be awarded twice (this current ITN is the 3rd). No, it wasn't nominated at the previous times, but with only 2 possible cases to evaluate, it's impossible tell if that was a pattern or not. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't know what article you're looking at but the one I can see implies the race was run in 2017, 2016, 2015, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009 at the very least. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
        • It's not a race, it's not run in any regular or annual basis. A team, at any time, says "We're going to try to get the trophy", they pay a fee so that the museum can prepare to track their time; they run their course (starting and ending at fixed points), and then the museum validates if their time broke the record. Several attempts have been made but not all led to the Trophy being awarded. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Got it. Maintain the oppose based on the fact the JV trophy article is a mess, and there seems little reason to give it a free pass at ITN regarding notability when we've never even had it nominated, let alone posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • An interesting trophy, but I think if we're going to post something like this it will be because it broke the around the world sailing record, rather than the award of the Jules Verne Trophy per se. As such it should be considered at ITN/C like any other world record, rather than listed on ITNR. The article is indeed a bit poor and we haven't said anything about popular or media attention. Modest Genius talk 17:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with ModestGenius; this award itself doesn't seem to garner much wide attention, even if circumnavigating the Earth does. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2017 (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] Polo?[edit]

No consensus to add un-named polo tournaments to ITNR at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2017 (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.

Could we please add polo tournaments?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s Please suggest a specific article so it can be discussed, e.g. World Polo Championship. Many thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Zigzig20s or even better, look: I found this... The Varsity Polo Match! It's a shoo-in! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A competition restricted to two elitist universities!? That will never be posted. Stephen 11:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
That one is more outrageous than elitist to be honest--lots of Pimm's! I'm working right now but will make suggestions later.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that polo tournaments have featured at ITN before? Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't. However, there is a long list of sports here--why not add polo?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, why not? Let's have a serious and mature discussion about it. If you have any other more niches sports you'd like to see at ITNR despite them never having been nominated at ITNC, it would be good to get them all out of the way sooner rather than later so we can return to discussing things in a less pointed fashion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We are very serious. I've created many articles about polo clubs and players. I do think covering polo in ITN is essential.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Jolly good, let's hear which article(s) then. I imagine you would absolutely need to start with the World Championship, right? After all that's the pinnacle of the game, so please, write out a proposal that we can discuss and get consensus on please. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • My initial thought is that polo is too niche a sport to get the news coverage needed for ITN (let alone ITNR), but I'm willing to be corrected. I'd like to see it pass ITNC first. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It has a huge international following in all corners of the world! I read Polo Times, but I'm sure we could find many sources for the main tournaments.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Not really, it's a very niche sport in very niche corners of the world, as exemplfied by the various "World" Championship articles we have. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If we could show that a major polo event makes it through ITN/C uncontroversially for a few years, I'd be in support of adding it to ITN/R at that point. --Jayron32 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The poor quality of the World Polo Championship article would be a problem for me. It's hard to imagine an event being on ITN/R when its overall summarising article is in such a poor state. A quick perusal of the articles for the various championships themselves, none of those articles would be suitable for main page posting. You could try an ITN/R push here, but I would strongly recommend instead putting your efforts behind getting the 2017 Championship through ITN/C and then looking to ITN/R. This would be helped immensely by putting together a good quality 2017 World Polo Championship article, and also improving World Polo Championship. --LukeSurl t c 15:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
U.S. Open Polo Championship is a horror show too. Wow.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It's probably partly as a result of the lack of interest in such a sport. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I think what's needed is to show that there's a sufficiently large enough interest in the sport to merit an ITNR. Yes, it's played internationally and there's international competitions, but you don't see this televised broadly (in contrast, even the most contested ITNR event the Boat Race has been shown to have viewerships in the millions in addition to attendees). It is a very much a niche sport as identified, but that said, being proven wrong as to its viewership/interest would help. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A really good proxy for all of that would be to show that Wikipedia's articles on the subject are thorough, well referenced, and continue to be updated year after year at a high quality standard. If an article on a Polo competition could uncontroversially make it through ITN/C for several years, it would show that the subject has consensus as a sufficiently important event, AND that Wikipedia has a community of editors willing to keep the articles on that event at a high standard. That would show consensus for an ITN/R addition. --Jayron32 17:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the "did it make through ITNC the last X years?" as that is a process that takes forever and with the variable population of editors here, a lot of things can change over that period. I do think that we should look to previous articles of that recurring event to evaluate if they have been regularly updated in a timely manner after the event occurred, in addition to evaluating whether the event itself is something editors here feel is sufficiently significant to a global audience to include, taking into account all existing events within the same field to make sure we're not overrepresenting that field. The ITNC test is one of those that gets caught in a catch-22 loop, because with the event not listed at ITNR, sometimes it will be as less significant, and thus the entry rejected. (That said, if there does happen to be a case of a repeating ITNC event that gets consensus each time, certainly using that to justify ITNR is fine). I don't think that this applies to the polo situation (eg article quality is not there, and we're debating significance now), but we shouldn't use ITNC repeat postings as the only metric here. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I assume you all realise this is a joke nomination?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly suspect we're all aware of the ITN/C background to this nomination. We have had a civil and productive discussion nonetheless. --LukeSurl t c 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion which has consumed a vast amount of bytes and editing time and produced nothing beyond the obvious I'm afraid. Time to close this down. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
When one acts in good faith, it highlights when others clearly are not. It's a good way to make such actions stand out by contrast. If everyone behaves badly, then we can't tell anyone apart. If we behave politely and give due credence to suggestions as though they were in good faith; if they were not, it would make the bad faith actions stand out starkly. If they were in good faith, then we are also proper to respond in kind. Either way, the proper response is to take the suggestion seriously and to offer constructive ways forwards. --Jayron32 21:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
👍 Like--LukeSurl t c 21:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I prefer WP:DNFTT in this instance. An editor with such vast experience is clearly making a point, especially after so many "votes" at ITNC against ITNR items based on notability. But hey, your mileage may vary. I'd prefer to not waste all this time coming to the inevitable conclusion which I requested right from the get-go. You're both saints. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like my constructive suggestions, no one is forcing you to spend time replying here. The list includes netball, and until I clicked on it, I did not know what it was. Surely we could add polo, which has a huge international following and clubs all around the world. I doubt netball does. The main problem seems to be that we need to improve the quality of the existing relevant articles in the first place, as User:LukeSurl highlighted earlier. I have asked for assistance with this, and I was also sent books by Horace Laffaye via WP:McFarland. That may take time, but There is no deadline.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Then please be constructive with your votes at ITNC, particularly with regard to ITNR items. That way you can be taken more seriously. Incidentally, polo won't make it onto ITNR, no article is even close in quality, no polo items have ever been nominated at ITNC.... Just to let you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
We are working on it, as per Wikipedia is a work in progress. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well in the meantime I suggest this thread is closed. While there is no deadline, there's little point in nominating something for ITNR when it's years away from happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2017 (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] Remove: Super Bowl[edit]

No consensus to remove Super Bowl from ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2017 (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.

It's clear there was some movement, albeit small, towards opposing the Super Bowl being on ITN/R. I'll summarize the main arguments as follows: the Super Bowl is a national interest story for a national sport that has little to no coverage or playtime outside of the United States; there is a large number of Western European/U.S. based national sports and events dominating the ITN/R listings; and in terms of newsworthiness this event has little importance. It does not have the same bent on national or global politics as do elections, disasters or governmental actions. Granted, some time ago this was considered a "low-controversy item". Given the fever-pitch tenor of the news media nowadays, however, as well as the general changes in consensus that have occurred at ITN/C, it seems fair to evaluate whether or not these events can still retain the sufficient newsworthiness to merit an automatic yearly posting. Incidentally, any consensus we reach from this decision could be assumed to apply to other postings of national sports that have equal or similar levels of influence in their respective countries.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Addressing two points:
  • The event is broadcasted internationally (albeit far less than the Olympics) [1] and while it's not yet confirmed for this one, past SBs have brought 30-40M viewers in addition to the 100M+ in the US. I also see post-game coverage from the Guardian, the BBC, CBC, and others, so there's international coverage (far less volume compared to US papers, but still...)
  • On the "same bent" argument, this would then be reason to remove all sporting news from ITNR, which is far too drastic.
As to the Western bias, that's one of those things we should try to fix, but going to the Polo nomination above: it requires people to identify events that are outside the Western sphere of influence and nominate them, to make sure our coverage of those events is generally of high quality shortly after the recurring event, and to show that the event does have significance in the region that it is in that might not be picked up by Western sources. Unfortunately, all those aspects are a function of the existence of the WP:BIAS that we need interested editors to find and promote these, such that when we evaluate here for ITNR we should try to ignore our Western-coverage bent to accept these. So I don't feel this is a proper argument to remove events as much as to encourage more events from broader areas to be included (like the polo one, though that clearly has some problems). --MASEM (t) 17:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This is one of the most-watched events in the US the entire year, and it is broadcast internationally, is usually top headline news, a subject of interest to many readers, and typically gets a decent article to post. Objections that are based on this being a US event are not valid or at least highly discouraged("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.") If the objection is to sports in general, then we should be discussing that(though I would oppose that as well) Bias can and should be addressed by nominating more events that would merit inclusion, not removing events. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose I can muster Per WP:ITN/C: 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. And yet, it's become an international event with lots of viewing outside of the U.S. This is one of the biggest sporting events in the world. We're not removing it. The fact that this is even being considered by anybody is a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for the following reasons:
  • The Superbowl is the headline event of a major sport (American football) with a large and international audience.
  • This is the sole annual posting for the sport, one a year is an appropriate and proportional level of ITN coverage for this sport.
  • The articles are of decent quality and a good showcase of the English Wikipedia's ability to create timely and informative articles on current events.
  • Many people are coming to Wikipedia to view this article. Looking at the pageview stats for today, right now numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 are Superbowl related. Readers are coming to Wikipedia to read about this event so it is useful to our readers to link to this content from the main page.
  • The Superbowl is widely covered in the news media, both in the US and internationally.
--LukeSurl t c 19:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We are posting Premier League and even La Liga, which have a high viewership but nowhere near the totals of NFL. Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I similarly oppose to the suggestion of removing the Super Bowl, as it seems to me, as a foreigner, to be the largest-scale United States sporting event there is. Even people who do not follow sports will know about it, which is not something you could say of many other sporting events in ITN/R. Of course, this is for a large part because of the US' global cultural dominance, but even taking this into account, the event still a massive economic event "considered by some as an unofficial American national holiday." It is the most-watched annual sporting event worldwide, which is worth something, I'd say. Almost the entirety of its audience lives in North America, so it's not a "strong" oppose, but it's a pretty solid oppose nonetheless. ~Mable (chat) 20:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I know why Walt is doing this, unlike, it appears, do any of the preceding commentators! Time to snow close, consensus re-assured, we can move on to next year's debate over whether it should be Superbowl 52 or Superbowl LII. I can't wait for Superbowl LIX! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I know what's really behind this proposal; I was part of that back and forth on ITN/C. It's important that all of us reaffirm in the strongest language possible why this is ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Well in that case Support instant removal this is a parochial game played by two parochial "franchises" in some random location in "America" (at the moment), it's an unknown sport, not like polo for instance. The fact that it was watched by hundreds of millions of people is simply a typo in the ratings, those people were actually watching The Apprentice (with Arnie). Honestly, I can't remember the last time I heard anything about this so-called "event", it's trivial and meaningless and nothing compared to two canoes full of snobs bob-bob-bobbing along the Thames in front of a load of snobs getting shitfaced. I'm burning my bra if this remains on ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Time for a WP:SNOW close? I think we're done here. --LukeSurl t c 21:07, 6 February 2017 (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] Elections: clarification needed[edit]

No comments for two weeks, no further action. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (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.

I looked at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Elections_and_Heads_of_State and I realized that it lacks any link to a detailed discussion. I am sure it was discussed though, can somebody link the appropriate archives? Specifically ones that say decorative positions like President of Germany should be covered by the rule. Nergaal (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was added in roughly its current form here in January 2010, with the edit summary "boldly adding heads of state as per discussion on ITN/C", so you could go find the ITNC discussion that was taking place around that time to see the discussion. I don't think you'll find "decorative positions" will be described explicitly, but the current ITNR wording adequately covers the German President being posted at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I forsee it getting very problematic if we have to assess, case by case, whether each country's method of choosing its new head-of-state is "acceptable" for ITN, or if their head-of-state is "important" enough. The current simple and uniform approach has a lot of merit, and we are not overburdened with these stories. --LukeSurl t c 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, that is the very antithesis of ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    But in Germany's case, the president is both decorative, and elected by a small group of electors. There is no "widespread" election, and unlike say the papal ones, there are no stakes. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    That's not required by the ITNR criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The current ones that were IMO never clearly hashed out. I think I've said this before: is something wasn't clearly agreed at ITNR, ITNC discussions should be taked into consideration for clarifying "unclear" cases. Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

ref. Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes? No consensus to change the existing ITNR which, in this case, is valid and should be applied, and should continue to be applied a new consensus is achieved to modify or remove it entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It would consume a lot of editor time if we had to evaluate the "stakes" of every republic's head-of-state election. If we have to have this conversation, so be it, but I will be firmly on the side of the status quo. Regardless, it is too late to affect the Germany item this time around. --LukeSurl t c 15:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Does the OP have any doubts about Wikipedia editors ability to produce a quality article about the German President every time it happens? If not, then I don't see what the problem is. We at Wikipedia are not the culture police, and it is not our job to tell Germany how important or not we think their head of state is based on our own criteria. That would be rather presumptuous of us. --Jayron32 15:48, 13 February 2017 (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.

Addition: Major software security bugs/hacks[edit]

While WP does not do PSAs, large-scale cybersecurity issues, such as the previous Yahoo! data breaches, are generally highly covered by the news due to the number of users it affects. I would think that any cybersecurity problem - a bug, a hacker, etc. - that has a direct impact on an estimated "significant" number of people or accounts (and specifically towards priviate/secure info) should be an ITNR, as once the details are out and reported to the public, news media jump on this fast so the "in the news" coverage is met. The issue is "significant number" and for that, I would baseline it around 100 million people or accounts (Yahoo's were 500M and 1B respectively); that number puts it around 1-2% of the world's population as to not make the bug trivial by any means. (To get an idea how that compares, please see [2]; less than a few percent of known breaches/hacks would qualify, and the 100M number keeps us to an average of 2-3 stories of this nature a year but of course, this is unpredictable.) This would eliminate things like the Sony hack (which only affected the company) or the Wells Fargo breach (which only affected 5000ish ppl). --MASEM (t) 01:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Determining the 'significance' of a particular event is always going to be difficult and I can't see an ITN/R-set metric being useful here for evaluating future, currently unknown, events. The significance of a hack/bug will depend on many factors, including, but not necessarily limited to, number affected, types of data lost, and the extent to which the problem has been exploited. The status quo of ITN/C discussions seems preferable. --LukeSurl t c 10:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding this general category of events to ITNR; each such instance should be weighed on its own merits. I think this would set a poor precedent; adding every bank robbery where X dollars was stolen, every earthquake where X number of people live, etc. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose every such breach is different and therefore lumping them in a generic ITNR is precisely what we should not do. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The magnitude of these events is subjective, so needs discussion on ITN/C each time. It's hard to see how these events are any more 'recurring' than e.g. terrorist attacks or business mergers. This isn't what ITNR is for, which is regular and predictable events. Modest Genius talk 16:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Parity proposal: Add Monaco GP OR remove Indy 500[edit]

In terms of prestige and status these two single seater races both form part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport, and should be treated at ITNR accordingly. Seemingly strong arguments could be made for why either is more deserving than the other – Monaco is far more distinct from other races in its category than the Indy 500/ the Indy 500 is far more action-packed due to the number of cars, passes, speeds. I'm sure many others will be attempted to be made through the course of this discussion, but all strike me as subjective. What matters' is the races' respective standing and significance to the sport, and both are seen as being far and away the race every driver wants to win the most within their respective series. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment - also worthy of note is that these races usually take place on the same weekend. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Question you say both are seen as being far and away the race every driver wants to win the most within their respective series but I'm wondering if that's actually true, certainly with respect to Monaco. After all it's typically a parade and he who qualifies pole just has to get his car round the track without pranging it to win. I think the overall F1 title is far more important than any individual race, and I don't think the same can be said for Indy 500. But that's really just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As for the race everyone wants to win most, I'd strongly say yes. Whether it's everyone's favourite race is a different question altogether (some drivers love street circuits, others loathe them), but in terms of the prestige of winning it in one's career, yes. On your latter point, is that a reflection on the individual events, or on the sport as a whole? And is that a positive or negative reflection on the overall health of the sport? My experience is that the level of importance attached to Monaco is inversely proportional to the current level of success of F1 as a whole. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have any quotes from recent drivers that might substantiate that claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Three-time world champion Lewis Hamilton "But naturally Monaco is the race everyone wants to win. I’ve literally lost three opportunities that I’ve had – maybe four – over my career with the car to do it." Mark Webber, on his victory in 2010 "It is absolutely incredible. It’s the greatest day of my life today, to win here is very, very special." (in the same article, which includes Webber's 2010 success but in the context of an article which did not focus on their team, Red Bull state "The Monaco Grand Prix consistently throws up drama like no other race on the F1 calendar. That's perhaps no surprise, as it’s the race everyone wants to win." Multiple Le Mans winner and former F1 driver Allan McNish "Just as every driver wants to win Monaco, every fan wants to go there. And quite right, too. There is, quite simply, nothing else like it." Heikki Kovalainen "Monaco's the race everyone in F1 wants to win, and it's not just a famous F1 race, it's one of the biggest annual events in the world." StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't decided yet if Monaco should be added but I oppose removing the Indy 500. Significance to the sport doesn't just mean to those involved in it, but to casual readers and fans who may be interested in reading an article about it. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Are we talking about the fewer than six million Americans who watched the 100th edition? Or trying to assert that casual readers who have little interest in watching oval track racing would prefer to read about it, relative to people who did not watch a race around the tight, winding streets of a medieval principality but might be inclined to read about it? I can certainly see the argument for why people would be more excited watching the Indy 500 than Monaco (and vice versa), but find the argument for reading about one or the other having not watched either far more likely to fall in favour of the latter. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Monaco GP: This was actually removed from ITNR in 2015, and the arguments then still hold. The Monaco GP is not treated by the media or the competitors as significantly more important than other GPs. It is one of several opportunities in the year to gain points towards the Championship. The Championship itself is an ITNR item, and this is appropriate and sufficient coverage for the sport. --LukeSurl t c 14:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that the scope of this discussion is not "should we (re-)add Monaco?", but "why should we not treat these two events in the same manner?". Bolded "oppose adding Monaco" votes are not helpful in that context, as the logical follow-up to a discussion that ends in that manner would be to propose the removal of Indy 500. What should be supported or opposed is the principle of parity between these two events, so that we can come to a consensus on the appropriate solution. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • These are separate events, for different sports, on different continents. "The Triple Crown of Motorsport" is a somewhat archaic concept and it does not bind us to treat these events identically. We should consider these events independently on their own merits. --LukeSurl t c 15:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's an evasive answer to put it unduly mildly. If the merits of these two events are clearly different, there should be no issue in demonstrating that what at a glance, appears to be a contradictory position, is not so. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)