Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7


I'd like to propose that the Elfstedentocht is added to ITN/R under the sport of skating. The event will not occur more than once per annum, and in many years it won't run. But, when it is run, it is a major national event in the Netherlands. The last event was in 1997, which is eight years before Wikipedia was thought of, and thus why this hasn't come up before. The most is has occurred is on three consecutive years. There is a very strong possibility that there will be a race this year. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The problem with that is that it is a national event. That isn't an absolute bar but it has to break out of that "domestic issue" box. We do have plenty of domestic sport on ITNR (Super Bowl, Permier League etc) but those all attract a significant degree of international attention. This one seems to lack that - speaking on a purely personal basis I'd never even heard of it. Of course, that doesn't mean much but it is an indicator that perhaps this one is a little too obscure to merit a listing. I'd say put it up at ITN/C it and when it runs: we'll get a much better feel for attitudes towards it then. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC).
  • Isn't this not recurring enough? –HTD 13:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems significant enough, but it's very rare (which is partly why it's significant when it does happen). I'm not sure if that means we should leave it to ITN/C? I also notice that we have no entries on ITNR for skating, nor for comparable 'rare' events in other sports e.g. the Big Wave Invitational. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, as rare as this event is, I don't see the necessity to add it to ITNR, as it serves more as a guideline for annual events (or at least those that happen every couple of years). As this event will most likely happen this year for the first time after 15 years, that will be significant. If it happens next year again, it will be considerably less special, I'd say. So I'd stick to case-by-case basis here. --Tone 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to propose that the Elfstedentocht is added to ITN/R under the sport of skating. The event will not occur more than once per annum, and in many years it won't run. But, when it is run, it is a major national event in the Netherlands. The last event was in 1997, which is eight years before Wikipedia was thought of, and thus why this hasn't come up before. The most is has occurred is on three consecutive years. There is a very strong possibility that there will be a race this year. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The problem with that is that it is a national event. That isn't an absolute bar but it has to break out of that "domestic issue" box. We do have plenty of domestic sport on ITNR (Super Bowl, Permier League etc) but those all attract a significant degree of international attention. This one seems to lack that - speaking on a purely personal basis I'd never even heard of it. Of course, that doesn't mean much but it is an indicator that perhaps this one is a little too obscure to merit a listing. I'd say put it up at ITN/C it and when it runs: we'll get a much better feel for attitudes towards it then. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC).
  • Isn't this not recurring enough? –HTD 13:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems significant enough, but it's very rare (which is partly why it's significant when it does happen). I'm not sure if that means we should leave it to ITN/C? I also notice that we have no entries on ITNR for skating, nor for comparable 'rare' events in other sports e.g. the Big Wave Invitational. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, as rare as this event is, I don't see the necessity to add it to ITNR, as it serves more as a guideline for annual events (or at least those that happen every couple of years). As this event will most likely happen this year for the first time after 15 years, that will be significant. If it happens next year again, it will be considerably less special, I'd say. So I'd stick to case-by-case basis here. --Tone 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

EU elections

This is a subnational entity and pov. There is also a latin american and asian parliament which should then be posted. Nevertheless, the EU parliament has no playing power...the big player being the ECB thats not elected, the other heads that are not elected. This signifies nothing and is far less powerful in actual practice (symbolism of "democracy" aside) than many smaller states like even Nepal or lanka that have geostratigic imperatives.Lihaas (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the EU is a supernational entity. This has been discussed several times on ITN/C, and has always had strong support for posting. I find your opposition to this rather odd, since you previously requested for them to be added to ITNR. The EU parliament does have fairly significant power, albeit of a kind that does not attract much popular attention. The comparison with the ECB is very odd, since the elected parliament of the EU and the central bank of the Eurozone are very different things. Nor is the straw man argument about other elections - which we post already - relevant. Modest Genius talk 11:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas, you are completely wrong. The EU Parliament is (and will get) stronger with new powers awarded to MEPs. The next EU elections will be, with the addition of Croatia, one of the largest ever pan-continental democratic elections. Your problem is itself POV and can be easily dismissed doktorb wordsdeeds 12:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Youre saying its discussied at ITNC, im calling for it as ITNR...not saying on its own merits it cant be included but thatit shouldnt be ITNR.
Alternatively we can list it with the opening of the EU parliament session as per a summit on ITNR since its a supranational body (not "super" ;))Lihaas (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

International Science Olympiads

I'm in favour of adding the International Science Olympiads here, or at least the more well known:

Perhaps something along the lines of: The nth International whatever Olympiad begins in placename. Iamstupido (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to be a lot more persuasive than simply saying you're in favour of adding them. Why? Do they get a lot of media coverage, for one? Strange Passerby (talkcont) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
They are the most notable science competitions in the world and do indeed get significant coverage when they occur. The only other sports of the mind on ITNR are chess and poker, so I would support this nomination. —Bzweebl— talk 01:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a good discussion, because I think it would lend some serious credence to the 'multiple stickies' approach - which is that for news stories or current events with a finite or indefinite duration but lacking a single newsworthy soundbyte: that a "sticky" be placed under the normal ITN items, much along the same fashion as the World Cup, Olympics, or Syrian unrest. This would make events which would cross a general standard ITN notability but with otherwise repetitive or unremarkable annual updates qualify for a pass onto the main page, which I think does a service to both our readership for the purposes of navigation and for the encyclopedia to showcase relevant and current articles. Colipon+(Talk) 02:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that would require a lot of discussion to make any real progress to such a big change as that. I personally oppose it, but it could make for interesting opinions. —Bzweebl— talk 02:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Summit of the Americas

I added it to the summit list as per BRICS, G20, etc as its the biggest evebbnt for the continent. Actually I think the AU summits and the UNGA opening should be added to. (feel free to challenge the insertion as is a right)Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to have the summit you added if were including the others. I'd personally prefer no summits on ITNR at all (and post only if something notable comes out of them), but there's no reason not to add Summit of the Americas if the others are in already. Hot StopUTC 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Added per this discussion nearly 2 eeks old.Lihaas (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This would fall into a different league, like SAARC summits - overall, I would agree with Hot Stop, there needs to be substantial output for the particular conference to be considered. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Was this nominated before in ITN/C before it was suggested here? –HTD 02:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The last summit was in 2009 and was nominated here. It would appear it wasn't posted. Hot Stop 03:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
That means it should go through the normal ITN/C discussion, then it has to be posted, before we can even talk about it here. This list has became a free pass for ITN credits as if they're food stubs. People suggest here instead of ITN/C and is added with light discussion (such as your "super vote"). For example, I don't remember the Grand National ever been discussed at ITN/C but somehow, it's now at ITNR and it's getting a free pass at ITN/C now. WTF. –HTD 03:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think SoA should go through ITN/C every time, because I do not believe the vast majority of individual annual articles on the Summit will be of general (or even specialized) readership interest for much longer than the duration of the summit itself. The point of ITN is to showcase articles and we must take into consideration the relevance of articles displayed. Colipon+(Talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose the inclusion of the summit of the Americas on ITNR. I agree with the sentiment that it should be posted only if there is something newsworthy. Meetings of heads of state often happen in the world which are more significant that this. I also believe this should be removed from ITNR immediately as it was included without consensus.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why the other summits listed (save the G8 and G20, I think those are givens) should be on the list but this shouldn't? Hot Stop 00:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
G8/G20 etc are formed on basis of powerful nations rather than geographical basis, hence are different. However, having said that I would support a move to include important outcomes of such summits, whatever kind rather than just noting that they are scheduled to take place. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
G8/G20 are 'worldwide' conferences, rather than a strictly regional conference. I personally don't support any of these regional conferences on ITNR; they ought to be nominated an judged on their significance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


Do we have to have five marathons on the ITNR list? The only other sports with five events per year are association football and golf (motorsports has eight). Why five marathons? Can't we discuss e.g. the Chicago or Berlin Marathon based on the event's individual merits (has something special/spectacular happened etc.) every year? I don't see why these races should be ITN-worthy automatically. --RJFF (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel extremely strongly about this - as I believe all of the Marathons currently listed would be of greater importance and ITNR value than an election in Kiribati or Marshall Islands. But in general I think these events should be nominated on their individual merits and pass the "ITNR test" that I refer to under the "Kiribati" discussion above - namely: if the event was nominated at ITN/C every time, is there is a reasonable expectation that there will be consensus to post it every time? Colipon+(Talk)
And 5 marathons have ANY effect on the world how? Rest assured Kiribati's election based on what spectrum is in govt will effect the lobbying for climate change, etc. Heck, they could be legitimate in recognising Taiwan or not, they cold be open to hosting regimes/movements/people that are condemned by maojor states. the tiny country of el salvador had a civil war, as did nicaragua where the latter was directly related to the election of the Sandanistas in the 1980sLihaas (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously no one is even interested in seriously nominating e.g. the Boston marathon. --RJFF (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I would nominate it, if I wanted it on ITN. I'm more than happy to let it pass by without any nomination. —Bzweebl— talk 01:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Elections of very small countries

I would also like to discuss a procedural issue. While the previous discussion on this issue was inconclusive (I've created a new shortcut to this at WT:ITNRSCE, SCE for "small country elections"), it does not imply that the community consensus is to continue posting every small country's election as they occur. As I have mentioned previously, posting small countries' election results has never been established as consensus in the first place, so the burden should be on those who favour posting every country's election to establish that this consensus exists. As such, going forward, I would like to remind regular ITN goers that small countries' elections still must be nominated through the ITN/C process. Colipon+(Talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Look you cant have a idiscussion again because you didnt like the outcome per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and there is not "reminder" of ITNC until consensus is changed its still ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Elections of small countries - ITNR amendment

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 following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: It seems clear that my amendment proposal will not pass, and as the discussion appears to be stuck on very specific points, I conclude it is best to close than to carry on. I am reluctant to do so, but when looked at from afar, it is clear that the current rule on Elections and ITN/R is unlikely to change as I had proposed. Whilst I still feel that an amendment to the current rule is urgently required, I accept the consensus in this section for no change. This means that Section 3, line 5 remains the same, and as such the only Election result nominations that require discussion and judged on their own merit will be disputed states and dependent territories. I would like to thank all those editors who took part in this discussion. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

With reference to the section above, I propose the following amendment to the current ITN/R list. I move the amendment formally, and will go to the Policy Village Pump to direct editors here. In addition I will put this on the talk page of as many editors as I can find who are contributors to ITN/C

At Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items, I propose the following amendment to section 3:

  • At line 5, delete "and", and add after "territories" the words "and the world's twenty smallest nations".

Section 3, Line 5 would then read:

  • Disputed states, dependent territories and the world's twenty smallest nations should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.

doktorb wordsdeeds 07:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to specify a measure for "smallest", Dok. Formerip (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
According to population, I assume. --RJFF (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This would mean to exclude Vatican City, Tuvalu, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein, St. Kitts and Nevis, Marshall Islands, Dominica, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Seychelles, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Kiribati, Micronesia, Tonga, Grenada, St. Lucia and São Tomé and Príncipe.
Samoa, Vanuatu and Barbados would still be on the ITNR list, as they are not among the world's 20 smallest. --RJFF (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Population or geography? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I should open up a new paragraph on "defining small"! :smileyface: :deepsigh:. I think we can all recognise that a problem exists. I have chosen two terms which could, as is convention, be discussed and/or amended. "Smallest" was chosen to mean "by population" which I think is more relevant to elections. "Twenty" was an arbitrary figure chosen because it seemed fair and realistic as a cut off point. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)At any rate, this is an arbitrary (and hence pov) measure of inclusion. UN recognised states is good enough (as we urrently do), i would add Taiwan as the logn-standing state without recognition to be a n exception.Lihaas (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
No, Lihaas, it is not POV. This is an attempt to deal with a problem which has been identified in ITN/C in the past and most recently. Yes, I have chosen "twenty" as a cut off point for convenience over a scientific study on the matter but that can itself be discussed in this process. I don't believe anyone here thinks that ITN/C should be a place where certain editors claim trophies for being the first to nominate specific elections every week. Do you? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's POV, but I don't think it's going to make a big difference. How many of those countries have had their elections featured in ITN in the past? How many of them actually have elections that qualify for ITNR? Formerip (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Why not define "small" as either by population or area; that way there could be more 20 nations... –HTD 07:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have assumed "smallest" to be by population. But it's open for discussion. Frankly, I wanted to grasp the nettle on this issue, which is just one of many any one of us could open on the ITN/R list doktorb wordsdeeds 08:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
How is rejecting the 20 smallest out of around 200 countries in the world "fair" or even sensible? Ridiculous. There's a real arrogance and discrimination there against the citizens of those 10% of countries. In most cases they have no choice of where they live, and we're telling them that their elections don't count. Big is not always better. In fact, it probably rarely is. And rejecting the 20 smallest still leaves around 180 countries? Is there really much point in that? HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I take the point but I think you've jumped over two hurdles here. All cut-offs are harsh, I accept that. Twenty was just an arbitrary figure. However where you are wrong is by suggesting we're going to reject them; we're not. The line still says they will be discussed on merit as should be the case for dependent territories. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Then it would be more reasonable to make a positive list of most important elections that are ITNR and should be posted anyhow, and discuss all other elections on their individual merits, rather than cutting off the smallest 20...30... no matter how many. Users would still object against Samoa, Vanuatu and Barbados (that are not among the 20 smallest) being posted without discussion. Currently, even East Timor is contested, which has 1 million inh. and which I would not consider a very small country. It's rather midfield. --RJFF (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Aye, that's a fair point. I am looking at this from a very particular way, whereas I can see you're looking at the same outcome from the opposite end. IIRC we did attempt to draw up a list and it failed, such are the ways of building consensus! I'd be happy to revisit the list building exercise again. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Well that's the nuisance with Wikipedia's consensus principle: If there's no consensus for change, the status quo always ends up winning. --RJFF (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the message doktorb. Just wanted to throw these two points in here: (1) I would think general elections in every sovereign state is inherently notable as it determines the governance of that country and the execution of sovereign will of that country. Any threshold we place will be an artificial one. (2) Even if such a threshold is to be put in place, it should have a significant impact on the intended result. If the intended result is a decrease in the number of ITN election stories, shaving off 20 from the bottom of 200 countries does not have much of an impact. Agree with HiLo that if we are having 180 stories might as let the remaining 20 inside. If we are to push the scales up or arrive at a "positive list" as discussed above, then identifying any such artificial barrier will be challenge given the extremely divergent view points of all editors involved. Something like a 10 million population limit which will cut the total by about half will include Burkina Faso while leaving out Israel. A G20 cutoff will include Australia (ranked 52 by pop) but exclude Indonesia (rank 4). A top 20 population will include DR Congo but exclude the UK. I doubt we will be able to arrive at consensus. (But yes, that shouldnt stop you from trying.) Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Local interest comment, irrelevant to those not from down under - a 10 million population cutoff would include Australia, but exclude New Zealand. That would really piss off the Kiwis! Look, any cutoff point will be unendingly arguable. Just give up now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, no, I won't give up, thanks. I'm not talking about a cut off to REJECT, but to DISCUSS, hence keeping the full sentence as already agreed. If we all accept that one extreme is unworkable (allowing each and every territory onto ITN), and the other is grotesque (forcing all nominations through pre-selection), then we're left with a middle ground. This is me trying to find where that middle ground is. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • We will never "all accept that one extreme is unworkable (allowing each and every territory onto ITN)", because I won't. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, we neednt we go into the difficult question of determining what such a threshold should be, if there is no consensus that a threshold is required in the first place. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the current system is unfair in that it makes any discussion irrelevant, violating the core concept of consensus. Users have a right to reject something they don't like, and shouldn't be met with a wall of "but it's ITNR" comments. If people really feel these countries are notable enough to get posted, they'll be posted. Hot Stop 11:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That would be an argument to abandon the principle of ITNR completely and discuss and decide every single ITN proposal on their individual merits. Only so will you get rid of the "but it's ITNR" argument. --RJFF (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, only elections in small countries get significant opposition. Some have even been posted with more opposition at ITNC than support. Hot Stop 11:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I assume this list of smallest nations will skip out Vatican City; the election of a new pope is generally a teensy bit notable. GRAPPLE X 11:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Grapple; papal elections are inherently notable as it's not merely the election of a head of state, but also the head of an entire religion. I'm sympathetic to the argument we need to have a cutoff point, but as I closed the last debate, I'm not going to state a formal opinion, lest that be considered an involved closure. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Could still go through ITNC, so what's the difference? Hot Stop 11:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Its already in ITNR under head of state elections (quote: Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included) Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Two critical questions.... Where does the RfC discussion really start? (i.e. Do points made further up in this section count as "Comments"?) Exactly what are we discussing? (There's an awful lot of "discussion" above about that matter.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, treat all sovereign states equally. Be it a small or big state (and why put the bar at "twenty smallest", thats totally arbitrary) election of national govt have global impact. Rather we should see this as part of the efoort to build wikipedia coverage to break systematic bias (North-centric, Western-centric, Anglo-centric, Euro-centric). I find the coverage in ITN of underreported countries highly useful. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Except that ITN's goal isn't to fight biases of any kind. It's to "direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Hot Stop 12:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
ITN's goal should be consistent with the larger Wikipedia project itself. That Wikipedia suffers from systematic bias and that it should be countered has been agreed and accepted. It should remain an important consideration in all policy decisions. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment — Without commenting on this proposal in particular, I wonder if I could bring up a possibility I mentioned in my closure of the previous discussion — if any bar was to be set, perhaps elections in nations falling below that bar would be considered minority topics, and thus would require less of a consensus to post. That may be a compromise worth looking into. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 12:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal would make no noticeable difference to ITN. But I'm opposing it anyway, because the possibility of any country's election getting a guaranteed ITN slot if someone puts enough work in is a good thing. It helps to ensure that ITN covers the parts that just slavishly following the BBC News homepage doesn't. If someone takes the trouble to create an article about an election in St Lucia and create all the tables and everything so that we have some decent current information to offer the world, why shouldn't we just go ahead and do that? Formerip (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Our local city elections have more population than San Marino, so all of the arguments above about bias, discriminating or recognizing the author's work apply more to my city than to San Marino. Why should we be excluded by the bureaucratic detail of sovereignty? Our local election has more effect on more real people than theirs does, so why isn't that what counts? Of course my point isn't that you need to report every election of that size (there isn't room); it's that Wikipedia's political correctness looks ridiculous as long as we can only report U.S. elections once while also reporting the likes of Andorra. Art LaPella (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO, ITNR serves as a provisional guideline on possible stories we consider. Even if something is listed on ITNR, it should not be posted automatically, there is still the ITNC process it has to pass. If the article on small country election is decent, I see no problem with posting. After all, 20 something small countries, elections every 4/5 years, only a certain percentage of articles is of ITN quality... This would make one story per a couple of months. Nothing wrong with that. --Tone 14:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do appreciate that some editors are putting in some thought on how to put some limits on this; I do have some sympathy for the sentiment that elections of very small nations are seem to be given an easy pass at ITN. However, we've tried a number of times to come up with a reasonable and fair cutoff. This suggestion, while arguably geographically unbiased, only reduces the amount of elections eligible for ITNR by 10% and this debate seems like a lot of fuss just for that. I agree wiht FormerIP--If these elections have quality articles that editors put work into then why not post them. That said, I would hope that in future we demand a 'decent' article for these nominations and not just something that just barely meets the minimum.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, disagree with the 20-smallest-country approach. At the last discussion I established that
    1. small-country election articles are by far the least notable articles to get get ITN postings and receive correspondingly the most opposition from editors
    2. the 'status quo' ITNR guidelines on elections were never consensus in the first place, and thus the burden is not on us to prove that this "consensus has changed".
    3. the test for ITNR should be that if the recurring event was nominated for each time it occurred there is a reasonable expectation that there will be community consensus to post it in ITN every time. This also fits with the current ITN criteria that the article is of "wide interest". The World Cup fits this definition. A parliamentary election in Sao Tome and Principe does not.
That said, I would like to propose another way to resolve this issue without an artificial cut-off point, which is to nominate all elections which editors reasonably believe there may not be community consensus - i.e. this would make a Belize election ITNC discussion while make the UK parliamentary elections generally ITN/R. I realize that this is hopelessly vague and considered by some as 'discriminatory', but with this approach a consensus should emerge naturally over time. As a previous user pointed out, one should not be allowed to simply invoke ITNR as a 'rule' when posting elections and facing opposition from other editors.

The only legitimate concern I saw above that counters this is the idea of systemic bias, which I agree needs to be addressed. To do this, the 'notability threshold' for election postings should be set at a relatively lower standard - i.e. reasonable amount of preference should be given to countries that are not traditional 'western', 'northern', rich, or a country with a large wikipedian population. That said, no matter what some countries will never pass this notability threshold unless the election is 'earth-shattering' in some way. Colipon+(Talk) 15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Whereas I support the concept (and feel that there is too much politics on ITN), Im not sure about the cut-off suggested. If there is a clearer and fairer proposal for this, I would support it. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 16:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Colipon-- can you cite evidence for your assertion in #2?'--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While I appreciate that the proposed cutoff is intended as a compromise, in my opinion it is the worst of both worlds. As briefly mentioned above, having the smallest countries on ITN/R is a fantastic way of incentivising the countering of systemic bias. It's worth bearing in mind that if the articles are not sufficiently worked on, being on ITN/R alone will not get them onto the Main Page. I appreciate that the "my town's elections..." arguments are being made in good faith, but I'll bet that in your local elections the winning candidate won't have the authority to take decisions on military action, criminal law, national health policy and so forth. Whether you love them, loathe them, or hold an opinion anywhere in between, national politicians do literally take life and death decisions.

    To explain my opening sentence, on the one hand I favour keeping these elections on ITN/R for the above reason. But if consensus is against me – that we should get rid of elections which do not garner significant international interest – then the proposed cutoff is too low to reasonably argue that we are achieving this. —WFC— 18:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

    • Aw, come on. Our local politicians make zoning decisions etc. that national politicians can't. I don't live in London, but of course London elections are more newsworthy than Andorra, anyplace except Wikipedia. The only thing Andorra election results is incentivizing is people laughing at us. Art LaPella (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I completely agree. I am of the opinion that whenever something of such low notability gets posted in ITN, it detracts from the professionalism of the encyclopedia itself. The main page is extremely public and we should put our best face forward. An election on Andorra is not the best Wikipedia can offer. Colipon+(Talk) 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • If I were being facetious, I would summarise the above arguments as implying that anyone who tries to publicise an article that isn't about Britain or America is an unprofessional clown. But I'm sure you didn't mean to do this, and will therefore respond seriously.

          Firstly, this project, and by extension ITN, isn't the exclusive domain of an American or British audience. Given the extent of worldwide use of the English language, I would question whether it is even written for audiences from what is traditionally considered to be the English-speaking world. Secondly, what makes us a laughing stock is that despite the Main Page being one of the most viewed web pages in the world, we regularly have stories still on the template more than a week after they occur. —WFC— 20:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

          • Then substitute "Karachi" for "London". Art LaPella (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
            • I'll do that, although note that much of the following is applicable to London (or New York). Outside of Pakistan, what interest is there in the knitty gritty of the politics of Karachi? Probably less than the interest in Monaco, Liechtenstein and Vatican City from other European countries. Probably less than that in smaller Caribbean countries from bigger countries in the region. Probably less than the interest from New Zealand and to a lesser extent the likes of Australia and Papua New Guinea in the Pacific Islands, and so on.

              And what impact do local government policies of Karachi have on people there? Almost certainly less than the effect of decisions taken by a sovereign government could potentially have on people there, be they inhabitants or visitors. The latter group being relevant given that many of the countries we're discussing are significant tourist destinations. It's worth noting that the bigger cities are well covered on the Main Page in other ways: through relevant TFAs, DYKs, non-ITN/R nominations etc. —WFC— 23:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

              • At the risk of monopolizing the page with something that seems so obvious: 9900 Google hits 407 Google hits Art LaPella (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
                • Ethnically related violence has a habit of skewing hit counts, and if properly covered generally doesn't need ITNR to make a credible case for inclusion. —WFC— 02:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
                  • Mexico City Sao Paulo Cairo Tokyo Moscow ... If anything skews hit counts, it's the habit of including tiny countries on a list of much larger countries. Art LaPella (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
                    • Notice the difference between Tokyo (which to my knowledge has not been marred by allegations of corruption or scenes of violence), and the others. —WFC— 20:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The purpose of this RfC is to decrease the number of "unimportant" stories, in this case elections, on ITNR. In my opinion, that is contrary to the purpose of ITNR. Outside of article updates, the only criteria for ITN is "significance." Significance can be skewed in so many different ways, as was shown by the recent arguments over the US college basketball championship. The purpose of ITNR is to make sure that such crucial events in the world, such as the election of the person that will significant control over a landmass and its humans of our only world. Really, I know that people say that sports get so much attention, and they are important to human society today, and I accept these arguments. However, we are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia, aiming to inform our readers about significant current events. There is no doubt that if we lose these elections from ITNR, we will lose the international nature of our encyclopedia. ITNR inclusionism is necessary to maintain the balance on ITN without succumbing to any biases our !voters may have on ITNC. We cannot afford to lose the balance of forms of significance that we have, and cannot sacrifice some of what we post to encourage one sense of significance over another. —Bzweebl— talk 22:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - absolutely and specifically The idea that some elections matter and some don't is arrogantly obscene. A simple report on an election in any country should never be regarded as "clutter". That is just plain insulting. Now, this idea of saying that the 20 smallest (whatever that means) don't matter, is just idiotic. It leaves around 180 of the world's approximately 200 country's being regarded as not "clutter". Seriously, that's just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In that case why should the "big" countries automatically get in without merit discussions? Anzac would almost never feature in that regard (mainly because they speak english, that doesnt inform readers of an no onewouldeven knowa lick about Guinea-Bissau without the coup currentlyon there,seems only i add content). Nor would the democratic notables of Africa and Latam (esp. Central America). As would indirect elections of arguably important countrys...not to mention Europe's powerbroker in Germany.Lihaas (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas, I absolutely commend you for the prolific work you have done on these election articles, as well as your work surrounding politics topics in general, and please take my word in good faith that I value all of your contributions to this project. That said, I have no problems with removing all elections from ITNR and discussing every single one on their own merits. To me, that is still the status quo - since I have pointed out time and again that the "all country's elections in ITN" consensus was never established in the first place.

WRT systemic bias, we should recognize that the issue of systemic bias does exist on this encyclopedia and make reasonable amends to ensure that places which are often neglected get the due coverage commensurate to the degree of this bias. Posting an election in Andorra or Tonga goes much beyond our duty to compensate for the amount of positive coverage that we give the rich Western world and anglosphere. Colipon+(Talk) 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Colipon, as I asked above, can you cite evidence of this assertion that there is no existing consensus for this? In any event, the consensus emerging here is that the current policy should continue.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
How do you prove that a discussion does not exist? —Bzweebl— talk 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The onus is really on the 'oppose' camp to provide evidence that such a consensus does exist. But FWIW, I browsed the archives of this talk page before my rants over at WT:ITNRSCE, and I have not found such consensus. My best guess is that a single (or a small group) of editors simply made an edit over at the guidelines page and declared it 'status quo' by fiat. Colipon+(Talk) 03:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You've asserted multiple times that the ITN/R category of general elections for all sovereign states was included without consensus. If true, that would be alarming as the assertion you make is a serious one - that we have been following a guideline that was sneaked in without consensus. I would assume in good faith that all ITNR categories have been included pursuant to a consensus, the burden should be on those seeking to establish otherwise. In any case, a quick search of the archives indicates that there was a discussion and consensus. Could you please elaborate what makes you feel otherwise? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact that the discussion can't be found doesn't mean it didn't happen; a lot of older ITN discussions are hard to find if not lost: the structure of the talk pages has changed over the years. If we can't find the original discussion (which I agree would be worth tracking down if possible), I think the fact that so many people believe it is policy is enough to demonstrate that it the current policy was formed via consensus at some point. As someone who has been active on ITN for nearly three years and who has browsed through talk pages earlier, in my opinion in the past there was an extremely strong consensus in the past to post all elections of nation states. I distinctly remember one comment, "Elections on ITN are sacred" that went completely unopposed at the time. More recently there have been some objections to the policy in reference to 'extremely small nation states' (I myself have opposed at least once) but I don't see that consensus has changed. The consensus emerging here appears to be to continue the policy as is.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit to above: Ah, I see Chocolate Horlicks has found the 'elections are sacred comment'. But I believe that the tradition, if not policy, of posting all national elections to ITN may date back further than that discussion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I will concede that there were discussions on this issue, but no consensus as a broadly construed concept - given that at least one our of the four users in the very first discussion voiced dissent - arguing for an election to only be ITN/R if it is given significant coverage outside of its region. "Elections on ITN are sacred" is not even an argument, therefore I will not respond to it.

Although said dissenting editor did not push this point further and acquiesced, my belief is that the practical application of this 'rule' over time (through posting elections of Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Antigua and Barbuda, etc.) has led to a very practical consideration that this policy is inappropriate and will face significant opposition - practical considerations that the 'founding fathers' of this policy did not forsee in their good-faith attempts to craft a workable skeleton for ITN/R. Even the non-involved party from the previous WT:ITNRSCE discussion has said that the "support" camp has a upper hand in its arguments, but that the problem is crafting a workable set of criteria to draw a cut-off line. That alone demonstrates that such a consensus does not exist. Colipon+(Talk) 03:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel that your description of the discussion is not accurate - the dissenting editor later concedes and agrees that "I'm guessing that if there is no article there is no ITN entry and that's barrier enough to overloading the system". The discussion itself concludes by Spencer noting that most of them have a broadly similar opinion. And in any case, consensus does not mean unanimous acceptance. If thats all you have to offer then I'm not buying that it was sneaked in without consensus. Any further change to the existing ITNR policies will require a consensus. I would also request you to please consider striking off your previous assertions that it was included without consensus. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Just found this as well. All previous discussions we've unearthed so far have been to retain the ITNR category. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Hang on, I have not said "excluded". I have deliberately retained the bit which says "discussed on their own merit". doktorb wordsdeeds 05:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In which case, we could discuss each election on its own merit, however big? Im sure all the big ones will sail past anyways. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 05:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually since Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO, the fact that something was long accepted before it was written down is completely relevant. My memory is that CH is indeed correct, long before ITN/R existed there was acceptance that national elections were automatically suitable for ITN, although small countries weren't really much of an issue then since we rarely had suitable articles. (The controversy was generally of whether to include non-national elections because they were held to be more or at least as important, rather then to exclude some countries because they were held to be too small/unimportant.) In any case after something has been accepted and implemented for a long time it's difficult to argue it is not the default position whatever the arguments about how consensus never existed or how unfair it may seem to those who feel it was snuck in. For better or worse that's simply the way Wikipedia. It would of course be far better if we achieve consensus either way. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we are straying again, and urge editors to read the summary provided for by the closing editor over at WT:ITNRSCE. This is not some vendetta to axe coverage of small countries - it is merely a streamlining of procedures so that election articles can stand the same standard of scrutiny given to all other articles on ITN/C. Currently there is an undue skew of articles focused on politics and elections specifically, and many of these articles are not of 'wide interest' and do not otherwise meet any of the ITN criteria - aside from invoking this 'sacred rule'. Colipon+(Talk) 03:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: our safeguard against that which is of no interest is the requirement that there be a decent update to the article, and that really should have a meaningful threshhold of informative sourced commentary, not mere extraction of identity of winner from raw data. Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Whilst it's certainly important to ensure that WP is not excessively centred on Anglo-Saxon subjects and events, I oppose affirmative action. It's a fact we must accept that some elections are more important than others – case in point being Burmese by-elections, 2012, whose political significance completely and utterly outweighs the importance of country in the world. Whilst I'm in agreement with the principles and rationale of the nominator, I'm slightly unsure as to the desirability of strictly applying a quota on the 20 "smallest" nations (or the "bottom 10%" of sovereign nations), but it's clear to me that not all general elections in all countries have any sort of 'divine right' of MP exposure. Some sort of line in the sand needs to be drawn. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Question - Is everybody else here mathematical morons, or just maths avoiders? At least Ohconfucious has had the courage to address the nonsensical choice of smallest 20 countries. 20 achieves so little, it makes very little sense. It has been criticised several times, with no constructive response. That absence of response reflects poorly on the whole argument of those saying we need to treat some countries less equally. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Response I have said in the section very early on that 20 was an arbitrary number chosen because it was, to my mind, a fair and reasonable place to start. This is a discussion, not an edict, so 20 can be discussed, altered or otherwise changed depending on how the debate goes. (Though it appears the mass objection means there won't be much of a discussion to have). I genuinely care about this issue, and find it unfortunate that you're peddling the untruth that I want to "treat some countries less equally". I don't. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You say "20 can be discussed." Well, fucking discuss it! HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't swear, HiLo, it doesn't suit you or fit the argument. It strikes me that you've not read the whole section, given that there was fleeting mention of 20 right at the start. Once you've calmed down and stopped being so uncivil, maybe we can revisit the issue. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Second that, furstration is not conducive to discussion. doctorb and me dont agree here but we can still see fit to discuss in civil manners. (well i believe and hope its civil anyways ;))Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I AM fucking frustrated, because those wanting this change won't actually discuss part of it. The proposal explicitly includes the words "world's twenty smallest nations". Soon after the RfC was formalised, I explicitly asked exactly what we were commenting on. Nobody responded. The only logical conclusion is that "world's twenty smallest nations" is still explicitly part of it. So FUCKING DISCUSS IT! (Where I work that language is very common, It's not regarded as uncivil. I know it shocks and horrifies some of you precious people. Maybe it will force some of you into actually thinking, rather than just reacting. You ignored this point when I asked it in what you see as polite language. That's either incompetence or very bad manners. So yes, I'm frustrated. Have a think about WHY I used the word. Discuss the real issues, not one fucking adverb!) HiLo48 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, okay, you can see that right at the start of this discussion, and in response to you just now, I made it clear that 20 was a number I chose to be fair and reasonable as a starting point for discussion. Some people above have made their feelings known about this figure, questioning whether it is logical to hive off 10% of the world's countries for the purposes of ITN. It seems to me as though that part of the suggestion has been over-ridden by a wider concern about our general attitudes towards elections, rather than the exact numbers involved. If that's how the discussion is to continue, then I can only assume people are satisfied to leave 20 as it is, or else return to that figure once other concerns have been satisfied. I can't have much of a serious discussion with someone who appears to be attracting attention to themselves through bold-cap swear words. If you're not happy with twenty as a cut-off (which, by the by, is not an exclusion), tell me why. Actually, as things stand, it's clear that my proposal won't be going anywhere soon, but I retain a glimmer of hope that we can get something out of this. ITN/R cannot continue preserved in aspic. Something will have to give. 20 nations/10% seemed to me a good figure to choose as a starting point. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You say "I can only assume people are satisfied to leave 20 as it is." It should be extremely obvious from several posts I have made (especially now that I have actually got your attention!) that I am not happy with it. Am I not "people"? AND I TOLD YOU WHY!!!! CAN YOU NOT READ????? As I've said, your absence of response until now is either incompetence, or bad manners. So, discuss it! HiLo48 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I was under the impression I had explained myself! I chose twenty not through science or research, but through an assumption that it was a good, fair and reasonable figure at which the current ITN/R restriction could be cut. At the moment, we allow almost all election nominations through "on the nod", without much debate and with nominators using the line "Wikipedia is not censored" or similar to bat back any criticism. The rule as currently agreed says that the only times we debate an election nomination is disputed territories or dependent territories, although I have struggled to find any such examples in recent times. What I am suggesting is that the rule is expanded. My arbitrary cut-off is 20 - that is, the smallest twenty countries by population. This would necessitate a discussion by the nominator to justify why the smallest countries in the world should have their election results sign-posted on ITN/the front page. I think this is fair and reasonable. I can see many smaller nations have articles which are often only filled in with rudimentary details, the kind of article we would not ordinarily post on the front page. During the "Kiribati debate", it was suggested that we use a shortlist based on world bodies, such as the G20 etc. As I have said somewhere else on this page, I would be more than welcome to reopen that debate if my cut-off is deemed inappropriate or unworkable. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Nope. You have still failed to respond to the reasons I gave. I think you're trying to be polite, so I can now only assume incompetence. May if you had responded when I first gave my reasons it wouldn't have looked so bad, but there it is. You have not responded to my reasons, and I can't be bothered repeating them. Your case is lost. HiLo48 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you want from me. You are being uncivil and unclear. I have explained by choice of twenty nations. I have explained that it was arbitrary and open to discussion. It HAS been discussed by people above this little mini-debate. Someone has listed the countries which are affected, above, and not many people have gone on from that point, so I can only assume that people are happier discussing wider points than those kinds of specifics! I am not going to roll over just because someone who prefers swearing has decreed the issue to be finished. I think there's a clear sense amongst some editors that a change is needed. On the specific issue of why I chose twenty, and what would happen as a consequence, there is very little else to explain. Those twenty countries would be brought here for debate and discussion. One of your first questions to me was "How is this 'fair'?". I have tried to answer by saying that a cut-off point had to be put somewhere to start the whole debate. Given that the world's smallest twenty nations have elections with very little world-wide impact, I think it is reasonable to suggest we don't give them front page coverage without a wider debate. If we continue as we are, there may be a time in the future when the whole of ITN is a compendium of micro-state elections and I'm not sure if that's showing the best of Wikipedia. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
No offense, but your statement that "there may be a time in the future when the whole of ITN is a compendium of micro-state elections" is absurd. I'm sure that you made that comment in good faith, but you must not have thought it through.
Certainly, it's possible that we'll reach a point at which articles are promptly written or substantially updated to cover elections occurring in many or all of the 20 nations in question (which would be a very good thing). But in such a circumstance, the same undoubtedly would be true of the other 180+ countries, whose elections would overwhelm the section to a far greater extent. Should this scenario arise, we'll have to rethink the entire setup (not merely the involvement of the smallest countries' elections, which probably will be the last to present a problem).
But all of that is hypothetical. No such issue exists today. —David Levy 18:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For what it's worth HiLo I did make a similar point. This only becomes a problem if people aren't nominating anything else, in which case the appropriate solution would probably be to shut down ITN completely. —WFC— 20:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose national level election are by nature wide interest, no matter how much smaller the country may be then some non sovereign entity. All ITN/R items need to meet article standards, ITN/R only affects whether or not we need to discuss inclusion ones the article is up to scratch, so the issue Tone raised is not really relevant. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
EXACTLY you hit the nail on the head! discussion and supports/opposes can happen basedon the QUALITY of the update. All elections are not subject to go up blindly (and many havent)Lihaas (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Systemic bias happens when we under-cover big chunks of the world due to our editor base. It is not under-coverage to recognize that elections in countries with extremely tiny populations are not as significant as those in larger countries, regardless of whether those countries are Western/non-Western/rich/poor/English-speaking/non-English-speaking. The point above about elections in major world cities is a good one. ITN/R is supposed to be for entries that clearly should be on the mainpage. If the Andorra elections attract less interest worldwide (and may be of less importance worldwide) than elections in Sao Paolo, why does Andorra get a by and not Sao Paolo? I think it is a good idea to bring elections in Andorra (for example) to be discussed on WP:ITN/C like other nominations. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I couldn't agree more strongly with FormerIP, who's already covered the point that I intended to make. ITN/R does not automatically result in items' ITN qualification. An article must be created or substantially updated, which is something that we should be encouraging for smaller countries, not discouraging.
    Because this (unfortunately) doesn't occur very often, most of the elections in question don't make it to ITN anyway. (As others have noted, the proposed change would have little noticeable impact.) But if such work actually does occur in a timely fashion, we should be delighted to showcase it on the main page, thereby illustrating Wikipedia's comprehensive nature (i.e. the fact that we attempt to cover more than front-page topics). —David Levy 18:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That is prima facie a good argument - giving an incentive for under-covered areas to write more articles. The problem is that this broad 'equality' rule only applies to elections and no other articles. It is hard to justify this when we venture outside of the realm of politics - we are an encyclopedia, writing about all things, not just politics. For example, if we are being 'egalitarian' about Election articles, then why do we not include the AACTA Film Awards or the Nigar Awards in the 'film' category of ITNR?? Why not include Taiwanese and South Africa music competitions and limit ourselves to the Eurovision song contest? In fact, one could almost argue that the real 'systemic bias' lie with politics-related articles on ITN in general, and that the ITNR-every-country rule is the ultimate culprit for this skew. User Calliopejeni1 and Ohconfucius also made good points above, that, systemic bias should take into account the relative scale and significance of the articles in question; that is, posting about Karachi over New York would be combating systemic bias. Posting about Kenya over New Zealand is combating systemic bias. But posting an inconsequential story about which party has a parliamentary majority in Sao Tome and Principe over an important election in Indonesia does not combat systemic bias. Colipon+(Talk) 20:02, 18 April 2012 (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.
The proposal has been withdrawn, but in response to Colipon:
Firstly, my argument isn't that we should use ITN to indiscriminately incentivize contributions to under-covered subject areas. In my view (and that of others commenting above), the types of election listed inherently meet ITN's notability standards when they occur in any sovereign nation. (Some might be of wider interest than others, but all cross the relevant threshold of importance.)
Secondly, as Doktorbuk correctly noted, an event's omission from ITN/R does not prevent its inclusion in ITN. If an important election in Indonesia doesn't fall under any of the categories listed, it can be proposed and discussed at ITN/C. —David Levy 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
For the record, its not only politics but also sports. Business stories are rarely that big. But im more than open and supportive of more science/culture on ITN. And adding other music comepetition that are national/supranational is good. Recently the Bollywood awards were added to ITNR and if there is a big Nigerian or Latam award (do we post the Latin Grammy's?) then athat should be added to. (Nigeria being the biggest film producer in Africa) Also for non-western film fests...doesnt Tel Aviv have one was it just one-off some time ago? HK too?Lihaas (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I know the thread was closed, but I haven't been online for a while. I agree with FormerIP and David Levy, and these threads are frankly becoming quite tedious. What is it like a monthly discussion now? The thing below by Lihaas looks good though. Since it's clear the ITN community is divided over this, it would be good to see some ideas being discussed in length. Nightw 06:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith close

Doktorb has closed the above discussion, which he started, stating as his reason "the discussion appears to be stuck on very specific points". That's obviously directed at me, perhaps among others. HE RAISED THOSE POINTS!!!!!! If he didn't want them discussed, he shouldn't have raised them, or, once the discussion got "stuck" on them, should have been willing to drop them. But no. It's not his fault. It's everybody else's, for choosing to debate some points he raised.

Not a helpful approach to making Wikipedia a better place. Very bad faith. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Get over it, get over yourself, and move on. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 21:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
HiLo, it may surprise you and/or your ego that I was not thinking of you when I closed the discussion. It was clear if you actually read the whole section (which I doubt you have done), that a number of editors opposed the specifics of my proposed amendment. Given that the debate touched on each element - the number and the election policy as a whole - thoroughly across the days it was open, I felt it right to close. Your input is clear for everyone to see, uncivil language and all. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I think doktorbuk had a good-faith run at this proposal, and it is true that a lot of people got stuck on the cut-off specifics again. He recognizes the futility that we will never reach a cut-off point, but that changes to this guideline are still necessary through some other way. I do not regard this discussion to be over. I am still interested in engaging and finding a solution that is workable for us all. Colipon+(Talk) 21:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Amen! —Bzweebl— talk 00:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, even though I share HiLo's view on the subject matter, this clearly appears to be a good faith move by doktorb. I dont know why HiLo is so keen to discuss where the threshold should be when the proposer himself recognizes there is no consensus for a threshold to be inserted in the first place. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with doktorb, this wanst aimed at anyone (also agree that its likely the whole thread wasnt read on the complaint).
Anyway, can we have a subpage to keep an open discussion of proposals and discussion? We cant keep initiating a ne consensus discussion every month.Lihaas (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2012 (UTCpoint with me.

This close occured immediately after Doktob chose to not effectively discuss HIS cutoff with me. I cannot believe his reason for closing had nothing to do with me. Also, the explicit cutoff point was part of the proposal on which we were asked to comment. If we weren't supposed to comment on it, it shouldn't have been there!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, the facts clearly don't match your accusation. I responded to as many points as were put my way by a number of editors across the whole section. I repeated myself on numerous occasions - twenty was an arbitrary figure, that I did not feel my proposed amendment would exclude countries, and that it was fair and reasonable to draw a line somewhere under the circumstances. I closed the debate at 2029 UTC, my final paragraph in direct response to you came at 1746 UTC. You did not respond to my final paragraph. I will try at some point later today to outline my reasons in the pages created by Lihaas. I trust you will bring your considered opinions, swear words and all, to the table alongside me doktorb wordsdeeds 12:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Bullshit. You NEVER responded (with any evidence that you understood it) to my point about the 20 smallest being nonsensical! You just kept repeating the same mantra. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh good, you're angry so early in the morning. I've not even had a cup of tea yet. I can't figure out if this attitude from you is an act or genuine. The choice of twenty didn't have much of an explanation behind it because it wasn't chosen after weeks of chin-stroked consideration. If I can take your point from Lihaas' page, you're right to point out that cutting maybe 50 elections a year to 45 wouldn't change much. That suggests to me, then, that we should explore making the cut-off larger. That would invigorate debate and allow us to explore the purpose of ITN with regards to elections. Twenty has the advantage, if you like, of being manageable and clear-cut. All this is so much nonsense now, of course, as we've moved on. I understand you seem to be going for the status quo? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we please all do our best to discuss content and limit the personal attacks, gentlemen? Colipon+(Talk) 13:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Open-ended discussions

Ive BOLDly created Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections. Feel free to add to that or even remove it if inappropriate. I think ive set it up well to be conducive to discussion, but also feel free to edit that. (I couldnt find for some reason the original posting to add this to ITNR, someone can add that to the relevant section there). Also someone should popularise to get more input and ahve a shortcut for quick referenece. Ive done one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#ITNR_for_electionsLihaas (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lihaas. I'll put my views in there later doktorb wordsdeeds 07:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the good faith intentions shown in creating that page. My concern is that the introduction (and hence the whole page) is written as if there is universal acceptance that there is some sort of problem to be solved. There isn't any such agreement. At some stage in the process we need to discuss and agree on what "problem", if any, that page is aimed at resolving. Can this be somehow incorporated into that Talk page? HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Youre welcome to change/reword the lead. I think i understand your concerns now. Is this better?
The issue is to get some clear-cut defined criteria for inclusion or exclusion so as to avoid the perenial discussion on ITNR talk, ITNC talk, and ITNC itself. Since all discussion breaks down because of disapproval over one proposal instead of producing many to discuss this seems a way to come up with somethingLihaas (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Daytona 500

I would like to prose adding the Daytona 500 to ITN/R. I realize that it's part of the sprint cup series (which is already ITN/R), but it's also "regarded as the most important and prestigious race on the NASCAR calendar, carrying by far the largest purse.". The articles themselves are usually of a high quality. There will only be one story a year, and it's separated by several months from the end of the sprint cup series in Homestead. -- (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I support adding the Daytona 500. Some years it has been posted, other years it has not. In reality, the race receives as much or more attention than the cup series winner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm slightly uncomfortable with that. There are any number of motor races and series and we can't possibly cover them all. Currently we have two main categories - series winners and triple crown races. The only exception currently to that - Dakar - is not part of a wider series and in any case is almost a series in itself, given its prolonged nature. I'm a motorsports fan myself but we have to draw the line somewhere, and sport as a whole is probably over-represented on ITNR. It seems many Americans find it very difficult to believe, but Daytona attracts comparatively little coverage internationally. I'm not dead set against it, but if the assertion is that it is more notable than the wider series it should go in in place of that rather than in addition. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC).
I agree with Crispmuncher and also believe that the Daytona 500 should replace the Sprint Cup winner. —Bzweebl— talk 01:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any objection to replacing the cup winner with Daytona? As a non-fan, I must say the Daytona 500 certainly receives more attention among the general public (in the US) than the overall series winner does. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

They are several months apart. Is there already a decision that there can't be two annual NASCAR related ITN/R entries, or are we just assuming that any suggestion that doesn't remove a similar other item will be rejected? I would certainly not mind both Cup Champion and Daytona being ITN/R. Is there a consensus that there are too many ITN/R entries? IMO, ITN can be a bit too stale quite often, so I would't mind more regular items (in cases where we can fairly safely assume that there will be an updated or easily updatable article)/ (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Crispmuncher's comment established reasonable opposition to having both on ITN/R. I agree with his contention over yours, but if others find that we should have both then that is still open to possibility. —Bzweebl— talk 01:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem with both is the category starts becoming unjustifiably large. There's a certain amount of sentiment that there is generally too much sport on ITNR already, and motorsport is the single biggest contributor to that already with 8 stories per year (including two on the same day) before we start adding anything else. We need to keep a sense of proportion here, and that doesn't mean blindly adding anything that anyone cares passionately about, which seems to be the general problem with sports entries. It's Daytona here but it could equally be something else: you could make a very convincing argument that bikes are under-represented and e.g. World Superbikes or the TT should be included. ITNR should be kept for entries that are clear cut and get through without problems at ITN/C: using it to get a bye on notability and allowing stories through that wouldn't get through without ITNR status is not what it is intended for. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC).
Unless its a small country election... ;) There certainly is a perception that a lot ("too much") sport gets posted, but I don't think that perception jives with reality. In comparison to how the world views sport, Wikipedia certainly under reports on it. This is probably directly related to the fact that the average Wikipedian cares less about sport and the average person.
Leaving the meta-issue aside, there is definitely an attitude on ITN/C that if a sport is not listed on ITN/R, then it is (nearly) automatically disqualified. Thus, even if more people think Daytona is important than the Cup champion, Daytona will be opposed on grounds that it is not on ITN/R. I certainly think Daytona is in the top 8 most notable motorsport items, so if something needs to be cut to get it on the list, then something should be cut. (I'll note again, that no one has expressed that they feel the Sprint Cup winner should be featured instead of Daytona - all preferences have been "both" or "Daytona only" as near as I can tell.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

ITN subjectivity

A discussion is ongoing on the general value of ITN as eing grossly subjective (in stark contrast to DYK) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#ITN(Lihaas (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)).

How dare you "hide" a proposal to scrap ITN in this way! Why not let regular editors know, as I had done by writing to almost all regular contributors with my election proposal? Why not go to the talk page of the project? Very bad form, Lihaas, not in the spirit of the project at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Although I agree with you, let's be sure to assume good faith. Bzweebl (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
how dare you " accuse me?! i posted messages 16 mins apart...and for the record there is no requirement to post it either!(Lihaas (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)).

Restaurant Magazine Top 50 Restaurants

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 following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: There is a clear and strong opposition to this that is both fair and logical. Bzweebl (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose that the release of The World's 50 Best Restaurants be posted on ITN/R because it is the most notable event in the food/drink category and would usually be the only thing that would be worth posting from it. Bzweebl (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I dont see a restaurant poll to be notable enough for ITNR inclusion. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this year's entry is likely to fail at ITNC. Hot Stop 12:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy close; defer until ITN/C is decided. If it fails there, this shouldn't have a chance here. –HTD 14:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I just want to mention this principle again. ITNR should be only for items that are expected to garner consensus to be posted every time if they are nominated at ITNC every time. This "World's 50 Best Restaurants" obviously does not pass that criteria. Speedy close indeed. Colipon+(Talk) 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Inclined, but despite it being something from outside the norm of politics and a little bothered about why some magazine should gain prominence for its view. in that case the silly idiotic "award" of time's man of th eyear should be too. but thats insidiously biased.Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2012 (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: Definite time scale for proposed alterations

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I see there's been a certain amount of dispute raised in response to Lihaas' insertion of a couple of summits. This is not to debate the merits of those addition - the place for that is above. However, I do question the procedure used since our current mechanism has no definite time scale. As such there is no sense of a definite conclusion being reached. Here Lihass was damned if he did and damned if he didn't since little interest had been expressed and there was no sense of finality either now or in the foreseeable future. I alluded to this very problem with the Kiribati discussion above when I suggested a guillotine on the discussion.

Therefore I suggest the following as a general principal:

  • Proposals have two weeks for discussion and for people to express opinions on them.
  • After this time the discussion should be closed. Where the decision reached is clear-cut it may be recorded by anyone other than the nominator. Debates that are less clear should be tagged {{uninvolved}} for an independent admin to assess.
  • If as a result of the discussion the proposals are altered in substance such tweaking of the precise proposal should be locked out after two weeks, and a third week allowed for comments and views on the final proposal (or set of options) to be considered.

In the spirit in which these proposals are offered, I request all comments to be made by 28 April. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC).

Better idea: Any additions/removals on the list should be suggested at WT:ITN instead of here. That page gets way more traffic than this one. Then, apply your proposal for that page. –HTD 16:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposer's comment: Courtesy note[1] left at WT:Administrators as the relevant talk page for WP:UNINVOLVED. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose- I am against such clear rules for discussions such as these. If there is more time or less time needed there should be more time or less time given without there needing to be a discussion about whether to make an exception to the rule. —Bzweebl— talk 01:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A couple points here. 1) I would say there was no consensus to make the changes above (unless of course my opinion is some sort of ultra-vote.) 2) I'm not quite sure why we can't have these discussions on WT:ITN since this talk page gets minuscule attention. Hot Stop 15:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    I strongly support your proposal. I understand where Lihaas is coming from- when he posts on this talk page to make minor changes to ITNR, there is no way enough people will comment to make a consensus. It really is unfair that he posts, waits a while, and then when the issue actually comes up people scold him for not allowing enough discussion, which resulted in the Summit of the Americas not getting posted because people didn't get interested in the discussion until it came up on ITN, at which point it was too late. We need to get more people to see ITNR proposals and greatly reform the process of adding items to make it easier. What happened with Lihaas multiple times should never have to happen again. —Bzweebl— talk 15:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe bold action is the best approach. My Daytona nom got ignored until Lihaas added SOTA. -- (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Plane crashes

In my time here at ITN, I have noticed that any plane crashes in which more than 50 people die gets posted on ITN, usually with a canned reason like "more than X number died, notable". Unless an article has not been sufficiently updated, I cannot see any reason why we would reject these postings. I propose that we just make this ITN/R. Colipon+(Talk) 18:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclined to support, but ITNR is growing massively. Though id add train and road crashes too...and boats(Lihaas (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)).
For sure, but lets get the election ticker through first ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Definitely! I am very excited about it. A sports ticker also sounds like an interesting idea... but getting back on topic, I support the nomination if we were to include all transportation disasters, such as the ones Lihaas mentioned. —Bzweebl— talk 22:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Transportation wrecks should be on a case-by-case basis. Notability is relative. As I see it, this is a bad proposal. Jusdafax 20:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Jusdafax. In fact, I consider plane crashes to be tragic but mundane, and would rather post them only after the investigation is complete and some change to air traffic regulation has resulted. -- (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Hurling from ITN/R

Remove. As the page states, Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. If we can't come to a strong consensus that this is true, then it should not be on ITN/R. This couldn't be farther from a strong consensus to keep the item, so it is hereby removed. Remember, this doesn't mean that hurling can't or shouldn't be nominated; it means that it has to pass the importance criterion each time, just like everything else. No comment on whether it would be successful at doing so. -- tariqabjotu 06:31, 25 May 2012 (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.

Ok, as I'm a bit fed up with these endless meta-level discussions that lead nowhere - let's try a concrete example. I hereby propose that Hurling be removed from ITN/R. Hurling is a very minor sports activity, played mostly only in Ireland (a relatively small country). The currently referenced item - the All-Ireland championship - therefore is also very locally focused. This is inconsistent with most other sports, where local championships are only INT/R items if they have a global viewership (e.g. the SuperBowl or the Premier League). Other sports of local interest (e.g. Sumo; Thai boxing) do not have an INT/R item either. Some more popular sports (such as boxing) are not included either (though for other reasons). Hurling can still be nominated to INT/C of course. Khuft (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose- The All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship is one of the premier sporting events in Ireland, and global viewership has never been a criteria for ITN. It explicitly says on the top of the ITN/C page not to oppose items because they are country specific. ITN cannot only contain items that have international interest. We post a multitude of items that are of strictly domestic interest yearly, and there is no reason for that to be compromised. The Super Bowl's interest is almost entirely domestic- I can't say the same about Premier League- yet if someone even considered opposing it, I don't want to know what would happen. We need to stop systemic bias of specific countries on ITN, and this proposal further proves that bias. Saying that because Ireland is a relatively small country its notable sporting events should not be posted is ludicrous. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
No policy document anywhere states you can't oppose based on anything being limited to a specific country. There is a statement that it is not a requirement that stories are international in scope, but that is not a restriction on considering the geographical scope of a story as part of a wider evaluation of general notability. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC).
This proposal was initiated with the claim that "with most other sports," "local championships are only INT/R items if they have a global viewership". But the AFL Grand Final (Australian rules football), Grey Cup (Canadian football) and All-Ireland Senior Football Championship (Gaelic football) are included. Even before ITN/R existed, the community specifically agreed that the premier championship(s) of every major sport would qualify for ITN (provided that the requisite article update occurs), even if interest is confined primarily to one or two countries. If there's no longer consensus for that position, let's abandon it and be done with it (instead of continually attempting to sidestep it by singling out specific events). —David Levy 18:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
That's why I said "most other sports", not "all other sports" on ITN/R. Referring back to a "community" consensus before ITN/R even existed to justify something on ITN/R seems far-fetched - remember WP:NOTSTATUTE. Khuft (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not citing a bureaucratic technicality. I'm citing an agreement in effect since 2006. You've supported my proposal to eliminate the principle in question, and I fully respect whatever consensus is established. —David Levy 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
@Bzweebl - Just a quick comment in case you were implying that I'm American or British and that's the driver of my therefore supposedly biased proposal: I'm not. I'm from a small European country myself. I just don't think that Ireland is important enough to have 2 national sports (with small to no following outside of Ireland) on ITN/R. Hurling may be proposed at ITN/C of course; don't mind that at all. Khuft (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Regular oppose. There are a number of sporting events that would be no loss at all to ITNR, but this is not a good example. While it may not be a big deal everywhere, hurling is a national sport in one sizeable English-speaking country, which makes inclusion of its biggest event fair enough IMO. Formerip (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "national sport" and "one sizeable English-speaking country" are the only arguments here. Lacking a standard by which we judge ITNR items, these arguments seem to be fine and dandy. So does that mean every "national sport" in every "sizeable English-speaking country" should be included? If that is the case then certainly the Tim Hortons Brier is notable? How about the Tom van Vollenhoven Cup? Both of those are surely national sports in English-speaking countries? How about national sports in non-English speaking, but huge countries, like the Indonesian National Badminton Championships? Colipon+(Talk) 01:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Not being South African or Canadian, I don't really know. The Tom van Vollenhoven Cup doesn't have its own article, so that doesn't seem very likely. But if curling can properly be considered a national sport in Canada, then maybe.Formerip (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There might be a case for Tim Hortons Brier, if it is the highest level competition in curling (although I believe there is a World Championship which might be more important), but rugby league and badminton already have their main competitions included. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Ideally, there should still be a much bigger discussion over ITNR in general, because this problem is not going away simply because we remove Hurling. But now that we are on Hurling I may as well weigh in. Hurling is not only not a global sport, it is not even a regional sport. It is a national sport. To put it at the same level as the Super Bowl is ridiculous. Judging by fan base, size of country, general notability of the sport, etc., it would be difficult to argue that it carries greater significance than the Korea Baseball Championship, or the Novo Basquete Brasil. So why is Hurling on ITNR, yet KBC and NBB are not? Probably systemic bias? Perhaps British editors' historical guilt? Perhaps just the mechanics of hasty consensus? Perhaps just a neglect of Korean and Brazilian sports? Whatever the case, this stands out as the most egregious example of an ITNR item that should not be on ITNR. Colipon+(Talk) 00:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just that this is English Wikipedia and Ireland is an English-speaking country, whereas Brazil and South Korea are not. Formerip (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
"This is English wikipedia" arguments has never worked. It's frequently cited by NCAA "March Madness" advocates, to no avail. There is no available past consensus to say that English-speaking countries have any sort of 'special treatment' on WP than non-English speaking ones; in fact, we are encouraged to do the exact opposite. Colipon+(Talk) 01:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No, "this is English Wikipedia" arguments work all the time, and are often appropriate. In terms of ITN, obviously we feature far more US-related stories than China-related stories, for example, which reflects the interests of our editors and our readers. Formerip (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you link me on this policy? Whether it be applied in the context of ITN or WP in general? Colipon+(Talk) 01:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The first purpose listed for ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." I take FormerIP's side here and think that readers of an English encyclopedia are more "likely to be searching for" an article about an event in an English speaking country, which might even be their own country, than not. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
If that is the case then we really need to be consistent, because a lot of people (many more people than Hurling) come onto WP to look for the results of the NCAA March Madness. A lot of English-speaking people, no less. We always axe that one on some subjective evaluation that it is too "American". Colipon+(Talk) 02:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Colipon, your logic is appalling. You say "Hurling is not only not a global sport, it is not even a regional sport. It is a national sport. To put it at the same level as the Super Bowl is ridiculous." Super Bowl is NOT global. It's NOT regional. It is a national sport. (Possibly.) Please try to think and write more clearly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You are correct, it was a very bad example in that context. Not enough coffee. I think I meant to say NBA championships. Colipon+(Talk) 01:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I am also pretty sick of watching pages spawn with discussion which goes nowhere, incidentally. A sci-fi author could have a field day writing about an on-line community which spends day putting forwards suggestions to improve a collaborative project only to effectively vow never to actually collaborate on something. On Hurling specifically, this is a clear minority sport, with few people contributing to the Hurling articles making it over to ITN, few page views on the Hurling articles suggesting a lack of interest, very rare and few/far between nominations...There really is nothing wrong with agreeing to take away something from ITN/R. I know that some people here have the attitude problem, somehow equating removing something from ITN/R is an admission of cultural vandalism or heaven knows what, but when it comes down to it, the list we have is a monster. It needs chopping down. Hurling is simply, clearly, obviously not notable enough to have a "free pass". doktorb wordsdeeds 04:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Would not get enough support at ITNC on a regular basis without ITNR, which suggests it shouldn't be on ITNR. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 04:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No real objection while passing comment. It is interesting to see the English speaking is not an issue argument being used to defeat a non-US interest article, as it is so often invoked to support US interest items. I'm looking forward to seeing Mjroots' take on this, or that of other anglophone emphasisers. Arguments about Brazilian basketball or Korean basketball totally miss the point: this was entered as the highest level of the sport (not merely the highest club level in the country), and at the time at which ITN/R was being populated, that was the principle for inclusion. Its inclusion was, as I remember it, an extension of the poor argument used by those defending US football/Ice hockey/basketball/baseball against the charge that they were merely national championships: they were held up as the highest standard of club competition in the sport, and because of either some Canadian clubs or a smattering of non-US national in some squads, it was not of merely national interest. The GAA championships also have some teams from other countries (NI counties being v important, especially in football, but London and New York also participate each year), and some players born elsewhere (notably Fiji) often crop up on teams. Thus the criteria claimed in defence of their inclusion by the advocates of US sports (top level of sport, cross-border teams, foreign players) were all established as having been met. This was really about testing whether US fans would abide by the criteria they sought to take advantage of. Kevin McE (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    As an American who has steadfastly advocated that the principle be applied uniformly, I'm disappointed to see you characterize the community's agreement in the above manner.
    The underlying motive was not to concoct an excuse to include U.S. sports. It was to put a stop to the endless bickering over whether to include sport x and sport y. From day one, we've included sports from around the world, including those popular primarily in a single country other than the United States. (Incidentally, Canada's involvement in ice hockey is far from peripheral.) —David Levy 07:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    David, I certainly accept your version of events as a matter of good faith, but the rule seems to be an awfully convenient rationale to include US sports events in the era when ITN otherwise had a strict criterion of including international sports events. As you said, a primary motivation was to put an end to endless bickering and surely you would agree that the inclusion of US sports events is a great source of endless bickering, so it's hard for me to believe that the inclusion of US sports events wasn't on the mind of at least some editors who helped form this consensus, even if that wasn't the overt reason.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Of course U.S. sports were among those over which we were bickering, as were domestic events from non-North American countries. Americans were opposing top-level championships via the "my country is bigger than yours" theory to which HiLo48 refers. Non-Americans interpreted this as arrogance (understandably so), which they cited when when opposing American/Canadian events. Meanwhile, arguments not related to nationality focused on whether certain international sports were popular enough for inclusion. We decided that all of this squabbling was illogical and devised a principle to address the problem. I believe that it's served us well, but if it now lacks consensus, so be it. I just don't understand why people are more interested in contesting specific applications instead of the principle itself. —David Levy 14:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even before the creation of ITN/R, we agreed to include an ITN item for the premier championship(s) of every major sport (which obviously includes one of the most popular sports in Ireland), provided that the requisite article update occurs. Not even international interest (let alone "global viewership") is required.
    If someone believes that this principle no longer is backed by consensus, he/she should challenge it (not a specific application). But before doing so, please consider the ramifications. Do you want to individually debate countless sports' inclusion? That's what we'll be back to doing if we throw out the longstanding agreement. (Well, I won't; I'm not a sports fan, and I don't care to be dragged into the fray.) —David Levy 07:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    As it stands, the status quo is that we already do "individually debate countless sports' inclusion", every time one of these 'minor' ITNR sports events comes up at ITNC. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 08:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    And I think that most/all of us agree that this doesn't make sense (for one reason or another). The aforementioned principle should either be retained (in which case such debates should cease) or abandoned (in which case it won't merely be the "minor" events that are scrutinized). I've made my preference clear, but if the community disagrees, so be it. I just don't understand why editors keep singling out individual items instead of seeking to gauge consensus regarding the principle behind their inclusion. —David Levy 09:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    Again, procedrual hurdles. Challenging 'the system' is basically impossible given that it rarely gathers enough participation for it to legitimize any "change in consensus", individual items are easier to discuss. But you are right, sticking to a principles-based approach is much better. Here we seem to still be conflicting two principles: one that ITN should be about current events that "readers are likely looking for" and are of "wide interest" and the other an ITNR 'agreement' that the highest-level competitions of major sports warrants automatic inclusion. In this case, I would say it is clear the former trumps the latter (and even in the latter, an argument could be made that Hurling is simply not a "major sport"), but you may disagree. Colipon+(Talk) 13:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    Again, procedrual hurdles.
    There is no hurdle. We just need to discuss the underlying principle instead of sidestepping it by going after an apparent low-hanging fruit.
    The community established said principle specifically to eliminate debates like this one (containing arguments along the lines of "that sport is popular in only one or two countries"). If consensus has changed, that's fine. But we need to determine that.
    Challenging 'the system' is basically impossible given that it rarely gathers enough participation for it to legitimize any "change in consensus", individual items are easier to discuss.
    To the best of my knowledge, no one has attempted to formally challenge the principle's legitimacy (by initiating a proposal to abolish it). Why is that? Is it because editors don't want it to stop applying to events of interest to them (lending credence to Kevin McE's theory)? I don't know (and I'm not making such an accusation). I only know that people keep singling out specific ITN/R items instead of questioning the principle that put them there.
    To be clear, I'm not referring to all discussions. Some (such as the current EuroBasket proposal) pertain to events not covered by this agreement.
    In this case, I would say it is clear the former trumps the latter
    Then why don't you propose that the latter be eliminated?
    (and even in the latter, an argument could be made that Hurling is simply not a "major sport"), but you may disagree.
    The idea behind the aforementioned agreement was to forgo intensive analysis (and inevitable bickering) in favor of broad inclusiveness, thereby encouraging encyclopedic expansion instead of partisan debate. We used the qualifier "major" to avoid lumping in such events as the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest and World Series of Rock-Paper-Scissors. It certainly is possible for something to be borderline, but the premier championship of a sport among a country's most popular doesn't approach a hypothetical cut-off point consistent with what the community had in mind. —David Levy 18:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    I appreciate you for engaging, I really do. I have attempted to discuss principles, but those never really garner attention, because people aren't attached to principles as much as they are to individual events (notice, for example, the dearth of attention given to "Guideline" above, and the large amount of text under "Hurling" and you get a sense). Even the basic principle of what is notable at ITN itself is hazy and subjective - all we have, really, is subject must be "of wide interest" and "sufficiently updated article". I really think the solution is a more objective set of criterion for all ITN articles, and then apply that to ITNR. Again, that would be a highly 'theoretical' discussion, and from my past experience most people are not interested in those. Colipon+(Talk) 19:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    Let's at least try to discuss the principle. The community cared enough to establish it in the first place, and several editors have expressed opinions inconsistent with its acceptance (so there's no logical basis for them not to oppose it). —David Levy 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I would rather this be debated on a case by case basis. Hot Stop 14:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    In other words, you want to abandon the principle resulting in items' automatic inclusion on the list. So why haven't you (or anyone else) proposed that? I guess I need to do it myself. —David Levy 18:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards oppose. I think there should be at least one GAA sport on ITNR. If we can't bear to have both, I would prefer that gaelic football was the one that went. —WFC— 15:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
From a cursory look at the GAA site, I got the impression that Gaelic football was the most wide-spread of the 2 sports, with Gaelic football even being the most popular sport in Northern Ireland. Khuft (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Colipon. Khazar2 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Am I correct in asserting that the only arguments for the inclusion of Hurling in ITNR is "national sport of an English-speaking country" and "highest level competition of a major sport"? I haven't heard much else. Colipon+(Talk) 18:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    Are you implying that you regard those arguments as invalid? —David Levy 18:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    No, I am not. I am wondering if there are more arguments. Colipon+(Talk) 19:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying. —David Levy 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    I find these arguments quite weak. I'm missing major Indian sports (such as field hockey, supposedly the national sport of India) on ITN/R in that case. Obviously, when the ITN/R list was first compiled along that line of argumentation, not a lot of Indians (or for that matter Singaporeans, Pakistanis, Africans from English-speaking countries) were included in the discussions... Many Irish people (or people with Irish ancestors) seem to have participated, though. :-) Khuft (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    No one has asserted that the list is 100% complete. —David Levy 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    It won't be. –HTD 04:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Colipon helped me clarify my thoughts on this by posting "Hurling is not only not a global sport, it is not even a regional sport. It is a national sport. To put it at the same level as the Super Bowl is ridiculous." I pointed out that, in fact, super Bowl could be described in exactly the same way. So, Hurling should be removed if the Super Bowl is removed. We all know that won't happen, so Hurling stays. (I now await the pissing contest where American Football fans say "but there's more of us". "Mine is bigger than yours" arguments never impress me.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • There's actually interest in American football in Japan, with the Rice Bowl (best bowl game pun ever) garnering around 60,000 spectators; they even made an anime out of it. Dunno if there are hurling, rugby or cricket animes. Of course, someone will say that since New York GAA participates the Americans are into it too. –HTD 08:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yep. And hurling is played in several Australian cites too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        • And I dunno any Aussie shows exported elsewhere that feature hurling as the main premise of the show. The point is that American football has so penetrated Japanese culture they made an anime out of it. –HTD 08:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
          • This sounds like the start of the pissing contest. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
            • So, it's all or nothing for you? –HTD 08:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
              • Well, yes. The problem is that all of your points are just matters of degree. (Unless we define having an anime movie made about a sport as an absolute criterion.) Should a sport played in bigger countries really be more likely to be listed than a sport in a smaller country? How much bigger? How much smaller? HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
                • It may be an extension of the 'it's more of us' argument but the Super Bowl is one of the two most watched annual sporting events in the world; GAA events certainly don't approach that level of notability. Plus it gets a bit more attention outside the US than is generally acknowledged here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
                • I understand the apprehension, but we have to draw the line somewhere: this is the whole point of the ITNR list anyway. An example would be that all domestic football leagues are essentially on the same level: The Premier League and S.League are of the same level (someone should be laughing at that statement); yet only the Premier League is listed here. Same thing for movie awards: the you could argue that the BAFTAs and whatever is the Gambian equivalent of the same level, yet the BAFTAs were chosen.
                • What makes this hard to figure out is that there is not even vague criteria of what an ordinary ITN item is. What should be the level of coverage? Should it be the highest form of something? If those and some more questions are figured out, we can hammer out what goes in and out of the ITNR list, and fix up the death criteria. It's actually surprising those two were the first to emerge with concrete criteria than the main ITN page.
                • (PS: The Super Bowl worldwide audience is way too overrated. About 80-90% of the worldwide audience came from the U.S., but the media coverage outside the U.S. has been rising steadily the last few years. Although you can make an argument that more people knew that American football exists than Gaelic football and curling combined.) –HTD 12:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I'm convinced by the argument above that one GAA event is enough for ITNR. This doesn't preclude it being nominated at ITNC. I think the point above that it simply isn't notable enough for a 'free pass' is right on.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Please see the proposal to eliminate the "premier championship(s) of every major sport" principle. Unless and until that occurs, hurling is ineligible for removal (no matter how many people comment on hurling without addressing the underlying matter). But it shouldn't be an issue, as I see no reason for anyone supporting this proposal to not support that one. —David Levy 14:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    David that seems a bit bureaucratic. Surely it's possible to make exceptions to the principle if there's a consensus for it. (though I would agree there should be a clear consensus in that regard).--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    The agreement's intended purpose is to prevent debates such as this one. The allowance of exceptions would render the principle nonsensical and meaningless; the door to debating each and every individual item would be reopened.
    Maybe that's what the community wants. If so, let's eliminate the principle. —David Levy 19:58, 18 May 2012 (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.