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

La Liga[edit]

No clear consensus to include La Liga at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 21 February 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.

I propose adding the Spanish La Liga, as it is one of the top 3 leagues in the world by most accounts, and is certainly of utmost importance in its home country. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support At least as strong a league as the English Premier League. If we have one on ITN/R, we should have the other too. Soccer, like it or not, is the most popular sport in the world by some distance, and I don't think adding this would give it too much representation. Neljack (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This has previously been discussed (or at least mentioned) in May 2009, March 2011, January 2013 ,and May 2013. We also already have five soccer stories running each year, so I'd be hesitant to support putting another on item on ITNR. My opinion may change, however, depending on how some editors feel about another football match that will without a doubt be nominated on January 12. -- Calidum 04:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
In further reflection, I oppose this proposal. There's no reason this can't go through the regular process at ITNC. -- Calidum 18:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Last year, the La Liga was posted as a combo blurb with the Premier League and FA Cup Final(!). 2013-14 had an epic finish though, so it'll be interesting on how things turn out if the final matchday isn't as exciting. –HTD 18:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support it's apparent that this league attracts the top players in the known universe, such as Messi, Ronaldo, Bale etc. It seems illogical to allow the Premier League a free pass while suggesting La Liga isn't on that level. We will need to deal with merging blurbs to prevent having too many "end of football season" blurbs inundating ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not boing ITNR won't prevent it from getting supports at ITNC. There will be some years when there will be so many "X wins championship Y in football" news packed within a couple of weeks that I see no reason to have this ITNR. If it will be notable, people will support it at ITNC. Nergaal (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    Could do just explain why it's less significant than the Premier League? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Why is this more important than Bundesliga? I would rather nave none than all 3 at ITNR. Once things get added they never come down. Nergaal (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You tell me. If you'd like to see the Bundesliga champions as ITNR, you're welcome to nominate it. In the meantime, your oppose (including the "boing") is applicable to every single ITN nomination in the history of ITN. The point of ITNR is to assign significance to those events we deem important, and all we look for is a suitable update. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this rather large tournament, in a rather large country, as I believe it will interest many Wikipedians. I would also support merging blurbs if many countries' tournaments end at near the same time. Mamyles (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, as this clearly has more following than some of the listed items in ITNR such as the rugby union club tournaments. –HTD 11:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose surprise, another soccer item on ITN! Do not withstanding the fact the unlike EPL, La Liga is routinely dominated by two teams, I believe it was established in European Wikipedians v NCAA basketball that before an item can be considered for ITN/R, it must succeed in at least one nomination at ITN/C. --166.173.249.220 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    For the record, there is currently no rule for an item to succeed at an ITN/C nomination to be nominated for ITN/R. But denial of an ITN/C item can definitely be used as reasoning for your oppose, if that was the case. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    There's no hard rule that says an item must first have been posted through ITNC before being considered for ITNR, but such a rule does exist as more of a precedent. Regardless, La Liga was posted through ITNC last year. -- Calidum 19:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    Part of the reason it was posted was because for the first time in ages the winner was not Real Madrid or FC Barcelona, and it was a combo blurb, tacked on to the EPL. If this nom is to merge La Liga with the EPL on ITN and post them as a combo blurb, then fine. This nom, as currently written, is to give La Liga it's own standalone blub, which it's never done on ITN/C before. --12.216.96.52 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not only is there too much soccer, there is too much sports, period. I strongly oppose adding any more. Jusdafax 02:37, 22 January 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.


Election of Leaders of the Continental Unions[edit]

No consensus and no comments for three weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 21 February 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.

I would like to propose we consider adding to this of Recurring Items Leaders who assume the 'Chair' of the following organisations: African Union, European Union and Union of South American Nations. I had recently nominated an item but was informed that it does not meet the ITNR criteria. Whilst some of these leaders may not have executive powers; I believe they are the de facto 'face' of these huge organisations and thus represent hundreds of millions of people during their respective tenure. It will also enable the ITN section appear more dynamic and up to date; and thus benefit the readers of the mainpage.

  • Support - as nominator. Ali Fazal (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Defer. Wait for the result of the ITN/C nomination first, which isn't looking good. –HTD 03:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Defer per HTD. ITNR isn't an end-run around consensus at ITNC. -- Calidum 03:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The deferment appears to me as a Catch-22 situation. That was the reason I asked for it to be discussed here in the first place. At present, consensus at the ITNC appears to be against it; partly as it is not listed in the ITN/R list. Anyways, I thank you both for your prompt comments. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is being opposed at ITNC because it is not ITNR(which is not a valid reason to oppose as stated on that page) but that there is some question as to the importance of the organization. The suggestion here is that it should at least pass ITNC before being considered here. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason why ITNR was brought up in the discussion is because it was tagged as such when it isn't. If it wasn't tagged, it might had not been discussed. As for importance, I guess it's the office, not the organization, per se. EU election results are posted (despite really low interest turnout), while the rotating EU presidency isn't. –HTD 16:42, 31 January 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.


Head of state in ITNR[edit]

ITNR includes the succession/election of a Head of state, meaning that it is always considered notable. However, in some countries like Greece and Canada the head of state is largely ceremonial, and the Head of government like the Prime Minister controls the executive branch.

If the intended effect of this ITNR section is to post when the position in power of the country changes, it seems that this should be re-worded. My proposal is to change the wording from "Head of state" to only include positions that have substantial constitutional powers. For example, the Prime Minister of Canada would then be ITNR rather than the Governor General of Canada. - Mamyles (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that the ITNR should be limited to the head of state that actually has executive power in their country. This doesn't mean the more ceremonial positions can't be nominated, they would just not have ITNR status. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Governor General of Canada would not be ITNR because they are the representative of the head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) and not head of state themselves. Prime Minister is not head of state regardless of what powers they hold. Regarding this proposal, we would then have to get into judgement calls about what "substantial constitutional powers" are. In the case of Greece, the President of Greece is the commander of the armed forces; is that enough? It also seems that Queen Elizabeth (and most other monarchs) would be excluded from ITNR because her role is largely ceremonial. Head of states represent their nations; this is why they are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If the intended effect of this ITNR section is to post when the position in power of the country changes...
It seems pretty clear to me that the intention of the guidance as it is currently written is that all changes to head of state are ITNR. I'm not sure if I have an opinion about changing it, but what's the argument that it is a bad thing? I'd worry slightly that if we changed it we would end up with a political bias where monarchs would tend to get posted and presidents not. Formerip (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Mamyles, would your proposal apply to monarchs who have largely ceremonial powers? Would, for instance, the death of Queen Elizabeth II be ITN/R on your proposal? Neljack (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Since the Queen does not have substantial constitutional powers, then no. But as it stands, currently the Prime Minister is not ITNR. Perhaps another solution is to add both head of state and government if the head of state has mostly ceremonial powers? It doesn't seem reasonable for us to state here, for example, the monarch of Canada changing is more notable than the Prime Minister, who has a higher profile and actually makes policy decisions. Mamyles (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A change of Prime Minister is not ITNR, but general elections are, which covers it most of the time. I would [ETA: NOT!] necessarily object to adding something like "head of government when not resulting for a general election", though. Formerip (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would keep it as it is. The arguments otherwise would be too subjective and too divisive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There has got to be a way to tweak this to avoid posting unimportant head of state changes that cause divisive arguments at ITN/C. This is something that has been bothering people for a long time, and should not remain unchanged in ITNR. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Then suggest an objective criterion that distinguishes between "ceremonial" and "non-ceremonial" heads of state which holds water and you get my support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking into it. I wonder; when Manuel Valls became Prime Minister of France a year ago it was nominated but not posted. Anybody know why? Abductive (reasoning) 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Find the ITN discussion. One imagines it just replicates the concern here: ceremonial. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Prime Minister of France isn't a ceremonial position, even remotely.
I'm not sure that why that wasn't posted is the correct question, though. Was it actually a mistake not to post it? If not, then we have no problem. Formerip (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a problem in general with specifying what kind of political leader changes 'deserve' ITNR coverage and which do not. IMO they happen infrequently enough that a discussion every time doesn't hurt at all, and they should be removed from ITNR altogether. For example a Prime Minister in France and in South Korea both have legitimate executive powers, just not as much as a PM does in Britain or India. There is no easy comparison between the two except that they share the same title. Moreover I'd argue that certain head of state changes, even for relatively important countries like Spain, don't really warrant ITNR coverage as they have next to no political impact even in their own countries, let alone internationally. On another unrelated point, article quality is key. Colipon+(Talk) 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There are two potential problems to do with systematic bias in what you are suggesting. Firstly, part of the whole point of having these at ITNR is that it can give countries like Angola or Kuwait or wherever an occasional shot at a blurb that doesn't follow the "12 people die after a tank of slurry catches fire in..." formula. I think it would be a shame to lose that. Secondly, general elections are ITNR, so if we removed other forms of political transition from the list, we would create an obvious skew. Put the two considerations together, and we could well end up with Bhutan deliberately relaxing its health and safety laws just to get on the front page of Wikipedia. Do you really want that on your conscience? Formerip (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest I've also never liked having elections of any sort as part of ITNR. I get that we need regional balance but having potentially hundreds of elections and political transitions eligible for ITNR per year is actually increasing the topical bias of ITN on political subjects. Colipon+(Talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
By my count, National electoral calendar 2015 has ~45 elections, not "hundreds". If that's an average per year, we'd see at least one election in 10 days, assuming all get to be posted (they won't). –HTD 04:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I will second what TRM says above; changing this is too subjective and divisive. Further, FormerIP's point about each nation getting a shot at a posting is significant too. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the primary argument against changing this section is that it would be too subjective to determine who has "substantial constitutional powers" for some countries. That could be resolved simply by changing Head of state to Head of government in the wording of this section, allowing reliable sources (such as this database from the government of Australia) to confirm who is the "de facto political leader" of a country. This change of phrasing would be the best way to include what most would think of as a country's primary executive policy maker, whether that is a Prime Minister, President, Chancellor, or monarch. If this change were to be made, heads of state successions could still be discussed based on their own merits.

Although, many ceremonial heads of state would still qualify as "always notable" in ITNR because they were elected by a general election. I do not understand how election results, for a position that has almost no power, are especially notable. Who holds a primarily ceremonial position seems rather irrelevant to the news or international politics in general. Perhaps an exclusion should be added to the "results of general elections" section to exclude heads of state.

The point of discussion is to attempt to come to consensus/compromise on divisive issues, so having this conversation is important. Again, my motivation for proposing changes here is that as ITNR currently stands, a change in the primary executive decision maker is not currently included in ITNR for many countries, while relatively insignificant ceremonial positions are included. That does not accurately reflect who is always notable, which is the intention of this page. Mamyles (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to talk about adding changes in heads of government to ITNR we can certainly do so(though many of them are covered by general election posts) but I don't think that should come at the expense of heads of state, which are notable as representing their nations, even if they have little power. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Just because the head of state is designated the representative for a country does not mean they are the representative. For example, the President of Germany has as one of its duties to "Represent Germany at home and abroad," yet the German official most commonly representing that country is the Chancellor of Germany. In fact, it looks like the Chancellor is the primary representative for meeting with foreign leaders, commenting on world events, and giving speeches about the state of the country. Now the President of Germany may still be notable enough for a blurb, but it is a great example to prove that the head of state is not always the primary representative of the country. Mamyles (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
However, neither is the head of government, as in the case of France, for example. Formerip (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
France is one exception. So it looks like simply changing to use head of government is not such a simple, non-subjective solution. In Russia, the significance of the position actually flip-flops depending on which position Putin is in, so it seems like the notability there is less based on the position's constitutional power than the person himself. So neither changes in the head of state, head of government, nor leader's general election results are always important/notable. Mamyles (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be leading into a "judge on the merits" method, which would mean simply removing the item from ITNR and trusting editors to reach a proper consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 00:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
After some good examples in this discussion, I agree. It seems best to just remove head of state from ITNR, as there are exceptions to the level of importance with any objective rule we can think of. Status quo is not preferred, since many heads of state are actually ceremonial and not always considered important. Mamyles (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
"Not always considered important" by whom? There are also systemic bias reasons to draw attention to other, less covered countries(both our own bias and that of the media) Calling for this to be removed outright is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is far more helpful to readers to have these postings than not. 331dot (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If that is the case, then why is head of government "on its own merits"? Why is the more ceremonial post ITNR, and the more powerful post not? Abductive (reasoning) 17:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Most heads of government are posted when general elections are posted (X party, led by John Q. Public, won the election) or are combined with head of state(i.e. President of the United States) so the vast majority of them are already posted. That said I don't necessarily think that heads of government shouldn't be posted or shouldn't be ITNR, only that doing so shouldn't be at the expense of head of state. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Daytona 500[edit]

I propose that the Daytona 500 should be listed here. The Daytona 500 is the highest-paying and one of the longest-running NASCAR races; it is often referred to as the "Super Bowl of NASCAR." I, along with other editors at the 2015 race's nomination, am somewhat surprised this is not listed here yet as this race is NASCAR's most prestigious by far, similar to the Monaco Grand Prix of Formula 1 or IndyCar's Indianapolis 500, both of which are already listed here. Additionally, the 2013 and 2011 races were successful ITN candidates that made it to the main page, as shown by the banners on their talk pages. With it being at ITN twice in the past four years (and hopefully soon-to-be three of the last five), I don't see why this should not be listed here. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ITNR items are defined as always being important enough to post. Given that two of the last four years were not posted, and that there is currently significant discussion in ITNC over whether this is notable enough, I do not believe this event meets the criteria for ITNR. It can, of course, still be nominated each year under the normal process.
Also relevant to this topic is that an event's absence from ITNR is never a valid reason to oppose an ITNC nomination. Nomination discussions are based both on importance and article quality, which changes year-to-year. Don't feel like any event is not notable enough to nominate/post just because it is not here. Mamyles (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • support adding Daytona 500 and dropping the NASCAR Sprint Cup per discussion at ITN/C.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Is the winner of this race more notable than the winner of the entire series? 331dot (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The winner of this race is certainly more notable than the winner of a typical race. More notable than the champion though? I have to admit, that may or may not true. It's certainly debatable though, so I'm not sure there will be an overwhelming consensus one way or another… --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support replacing Sprint Cup winner with Daytona 500. It terms of cultural significance (which is the only real significance of any sport), it is unquestionable that the Daytona 500 is the more important of the two. The average non-fan may not even hear the name of the Cup champion, while possibly watching the Daytona 500. Daytona gets plenty of advertising tie-ins at ordinary stores, "water cooler" talk, and non-sports media news coverage. The Cup champion being determined gets none of those. Indeed, NASCAR in general is seen as a advertising negative outside the American south and thus you never see ads with drivers outside of NASCAR programming, except around Daytona time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose don't see any compelling reason beyond an "I like it" argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    For the record, I hate NASCAR. My support is based on the relative attention paid to Daytona vs. the Cup, not any sort of thing a like or don't like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    But using that argument, the relative attention paid to every Formula One Grand Prix would necessitate their inclusion each and every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying every Formula 1 race is more popular than Daytona or that every individual race is more popular than the Formula 1 championship? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm saying why is one race more important than any other race in a championship? I'd happily remove the Monaco GP from ITNR, it's anachronistic, particularly considering it's typically the worst race of the entire calendar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: In terms of points awarded, it's not. The Daytona 500 awards the same amount of points which are just as valuable to the championship battle as points from any other race. This race, however, is the biggest race of the season in terms of prestige. It draws the most media attention and awards more prize money than any other race, among other things. It's nicknamed "The Super Bowl of NASCAR" for a reason. Hope this helps, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know if I would say I oppose this but I have difficulty with the idea that the winner of the first race of a series is somehow more important than the winner of the entire series. Being the winner of the entire series means one is presumably the best in the sport(or league at least); while winning Daytona might get a lot of attention, it doesn't mean they are the best driver overall. I guess I would have to say that if I was going to support anything here it would be having both(Daytona for its cultural significance and the series for the best driver), not replacing one with the other. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    It is certainly true that in terms of skill, winning the championship is a better indicator. This would be equally true in the case of the Indianapolis 500 vs. IndyCar Series (only 500 listed) or Monaco Grand Prix vs. Formula 1 champion (both listed). So, it (in-sport skill vs. cultural impact) is a valid debate and could go either way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Crispmuncher, Bzweebl: who participated in the previous discussion on this topic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I would say the winner of the Sprint Cup Series is more notable than the winner of the Daytona 500. From experience, casual American sports fans would recall more easily the overall winner, though granted that was when Jimmie Johnson won five consecutive years. Daytona 500 is definitely not on the same level of the individual races we have currently listed at ITN/R, so we should leave it to be debated each year and not give it the automatic pass ITN/R provides. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

E-sports[edit]

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

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

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