Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

For discussion of election criteria see Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections.

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. --76.18.43.253 (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)/81.170.148.21 (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)

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. --98.203.99.251 (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)).

• Support - I would tend to agree with Lihaas on this. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to axe half of those 'sports' entries in ITNR though... or have a sports ticker. Colipon+(Talk) 11:52, 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. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 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 _words^deeds 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)).

Guideline?

I've been thinking. Is it perhaps time to downgrade ITNR from guideline status? It seems ITNR is routinely used to force certain items through, and once an item is listed on ITNR it is incredibly difficult to remove. Not treating these as guidelines set in stone seems to me to be a good idea? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to have hit the nail on the head, I would tend to support such a proposal. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• I am for this proposal, though I would like to see how this would work in practice, and how the procedures surrounding ITNR posts would change. If I were to post an election in Marshall Islands or the results of the World Netball Championships, what standard of consensus do we need to remove it from an ITN posting? Colipon+(Talk) 14:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Because, as far as I can tell, all this means is that a normal ITNR item would have to go through the same ITNC process, but presumably required a lower standard of consensus to pass. User Lihaas alluded to this earlier as effectively categorizing ITNR items in the same threshold of consensus-requirement as 'minority topics'. Colipon+(Talk) 19:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't even need consensus; all you need is an update! –HTD 04:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think it should remain a guideline, for the simple reason that any changes to the list should reflect consensus on this talk page and ITN/C. Removing that designation makes it into a free-for-all of randomly adding and removing items. Modest Genius ^talk 18:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be downgraded, and I hope we can work towards agreeing to do so. Unfortunately two things come to mind - the "ITN/R is sacred" brigade will come down here with great vengeance, and as recent discussions have proven, we can't seem to agree on anything even after months of discussion doktorb _words^deeds 05:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now, ITN/DC suggests that "Deaths should not be added without consensus at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.". Why not just use the same for ITNR? It's simple, it works. Colipon+(Talk) 18:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would you need ITN/R at all then? Khuft (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Question from my side, not having followed the discussions in the previous months / years: is it really so difficult to remove sth from ITN/R? Hurling was mentioned - when was the last attempt to have it removed? Shouldn't we just try again, as a test? Regarding the elections: this seems to me to be rather an issue of changing the ITN/R rule instead of deleting something - lots of people would like elections of small countries to be removed, but there seems to be no consensus (yet) on defining exactly which ones to exclude. Instead of trying to wreck the whole ITN/R edifice, why not go back to that concrete problem? Khuft (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I, and a few other brave souls who deserve barnstars from me, tried FOR YEARS to remove both hurling and Gaelic football and I gave up. I don't know how it even got there. (can somebody look on this?) I'm not even discussing it now (my comments on the Hurling section below aren't even related to hurling lol). –HTD 12:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Hurling from ITN/R

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 _words^deeds 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 (talk • cont) 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 (talk • cont) 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)

Proposal to eliminate the "premier championship(s) of every major sport" principle

Because it seems that no one else wants to initiate this discussion, I've decided to do so myself.
The community agreed (back in 2006, I believe) to automatically include an ITN item for the premier championship(s) of every major sport (provided that the requisite article update occurs), thereby eliminating the need for individual debates (such as the ongoing discussion about hurling). Whether consensus for this agreement remains is unclear, so I seek to gauge that now.
If the principle is eliminated, the inclusion of any sporting event at ITN/R will be subject to specific consensus; statements such as "the Super Bowl is the premier championship of American football", "the AFL Grand Final is the premier championship of Australian rules football" and "the Grey Cup is the premier championship of Canadian football" will no longer constitute inherent justification for an event's inclusion.
For the record, I oppose this proposal (because I believe that the agreement has prevented a great deal of partisan bickering, thereby enabling us to focus more on improving the actual encyclopedia articles). But if the community disagrees with me, I fully respect its position. Either way, let's find out. —David Levy 19:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support the elimination of a "principle" dating back to 2006 which I'd guess most of the current community is not even aware of, as per WP:NOTSTATUTE. "Major sport" is not even really defined in this "principle". The bickering mentioned in the proposal occurs anyway on ITN/C when certain proposals pop up. I prefer a case-by-case discussion on the relevance of the individual sports & leagues here on ITN/R. Khuft (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  WP:NOTSTATUTE is irrelevant, as no one asserts that we're bound by a bureaucratic technicality. If consensus has changed, so be it. —David Levy 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Can we have a link to this "principle" and any other principle that 'governs' ITN at the moment? Colipon+(Talk) 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  No one has succeeded in tracking down the original discussion (which apparently wasn't archived properly). The archives that do survive contain only mentions of the discussion and reiteration that the agreement exists.
  This doesn't really matter, however, as we aren't bound by that decision anyway. What matters is the current consensus. —David Levy 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  If no one can actually link the original principle, then I don't see any real purpose to this discussion, since the consensus obviously was not important enough to get 'enshrined'. Regardless, even if we accept that such a principle exists, it would still be a far stretch to establish Hurling as a "major sport". As such, I believe this discussion no longer has much relevance. Colipon+(Talk) 16:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  If no one can actually link the original principle,
  We're unable to link to the original discussion, which evidently wasn't archived properly. The principle has been applied since 2006.
  then I don't see any real purpose to this discussion, since the consensus obviously was not important enough to get 'enshrined'.
  I thought that you were requesting a link to the original discussion. Are you referring to documentation within a guideline? If so, that role is filled by ITN/R (originally Wikipedia:Sports on ITN), which encompasses the relevant events and many others.
  But again, none of this matters. If the principle lacks consensus now, it carries no more weight than it would if it never existed. So let's determine the current consensus. If you oppose the principle, please support this proposal. I encourage this.
  Regardless, even if we accept that such a principle exists, it would still be a far stretch to establish Hurling as a "major sport".
  As I explained previously, the idea behind the 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, not to exclude one of the most popular sports in Ireland (or any other country). —David Levy 19:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Pause for now I would like to see this idea put into place. BUT can we wait for the consensus in the three above before making a decision? doktorb _words^deeds 22:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  The hurling discussion should be paused, as that item's eligibility for removal is contingent upon the principle's elimination.
  The EuroBasket event doesn't fall under the agreement (because it isn't basketball's premier championship). I don't know whether the World Series of Poker is widely considered poker's premier championship. —David Levy 22:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• The WSOP is poker's premier championship. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The current principle prevents a great deal of bickering and broadens the sporting content highlighted, without in itself adding too much burden to ITN. If the underlying issue is that there are to many sporting events on ITN, it seems to me that the problem is more to do with several sports having stretched to 4+ competitions a year, than some sports having 1 (or fewer) competitions a year.ReadingOldBoy (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Depends. The terms "premier championship" and "major sport" should be defined first, then we'd talk. –HTD 14:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  "Premier championship" refers to a championship widely regarded as that of the sport's highest level of competition. (Occasionally, multiple events share this distinction.)
  We've never precisely defined "major sport", which has rarely been a point of contention. (See my reply to Hot Stop.)
  If you regard this as too vague, you probably should support the proposal to eliminate the principle. —David Levy 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Howard here. The definition of "major sport" is particularly relevant, because I can imagine many people feel sports like netball, handball, and hurling (and probably more) aren't major sports. So debating this is largely irrelevant to me. Hot Stop 14:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  (EC) It'll be interesting on how "major sport" will be defined, if anyone has the guts to do it, that will include American football while excluding the likes of netball and Gaelic games. On handball, I'm now a firm believer that it's a massive sport, albeit massively Eurocentric; in fact it is more Eurocentric than the "Big 4 sports" in North America except American football are American-centric. –HTD 14:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  As I noted in the hurling discussion, the idea behind the 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. —David Levy 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  Defined or not, there was, is, and will be bickering. –HTD 14:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  It was much worse before. —David Levy 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  That's because I don't oppose Gaelic games nominations anymore. :P –HTD 15:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  I meant "before this principle was established". —David Levy 17:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  Even after the principle was established people still bickered, this time on whether "X" was a major sport. –HTD 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  I haven't seen that occur often. —David Levy 02:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Probably every time the GAA final rolled along, or when there's a new wave of suggestions at this talk page. Super Bowl arguments aren't really on whether it's a major sport anyway... –HTD 02:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  You became active at ITN around the time that the agreement took effect, so you might not realize how much worse the problem was until then. —David Levy 03:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  I've been observing for at least a year before I got active so I had a pretty good idea. I remember one World Series nomination getting badly beaten up. Anyway, discussions are quite rare, so every time such discussions flare up, it almost always ends up on that topic. –HTD 03:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- This proposal could save WP:ITN/R from succumbing to systemic bias, which it appears is unfortunately happening with all the silly removal nominations above. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Am I missing something here? This seems to be a proposal to make no alteration to any policy or guideline. A principle of whose existence no evidence can be found is not, for practical purposes, a working principle in the first place. On the other hand, the idea that ITNR for sporting events should include the most important sporting events in the most important sports looks like a no-brainer. What's the motivation for opposing a principle that's both officially non-existent and at the same time obviously sensible? Formerip (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know where you're getting the idea that this is "a principle of whose existence no evidence can be found". It's been applied (and to my knowledge, never directly challenged) since 2006. Various archives contain discussion of it dating back to about that time (just not the original discussion, for whatever reason).
  But again, none of that matters. What matters is whether there's consensus for it now. This proposal's purpose is simply to determine that. If the the principle were a brand new idea, this would make very little difference. (Its longstanding existence is relevant only to the argument that it's worked well.)
  If you regard the principle as sensible, you should oppose the proposal to eliminate it. Someone who regards the principle as insensible should support the proposal to eliminate it. It's that simple. —David Levy 00:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Radical idea to overhaul ITN

Discussion happening WT:ITN which may interest people. --Jayron32 01:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I will reply to this in more detail on the page it is currently being discussed, but I just have to say, Hurling really opened a huge can of worms, and clearly demonstrates that without an objective set of criteria or clearly laid out goals for ITN, both of which are discussed and accepted by the community, ITN debates about the vast majority of topics can go on forever, without any basis to say whether one argument is better than the next. Colipon+(Talk) 01:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that there already are clearly laid out goals which can be found at WP:ITN? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Like I pointed out before, it is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." This, to me, is not "clearly laid out". It is extremely vague and arguments always ensue over what is considered "wide interest". Colipon+(Talk) 02:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the ITNR guidelines, all I could find for a definition is "Certain regularly recurring events are considered of sufficient interest to be placed on ITN every time they occur". Again, "sufficient interest" is extremely vague and totally subjective. Colipon+(Talk) 02:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm on board for change. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with Bzweebl's first comment on this one. I believe having broad guidelines is preferable to a clear set of rules; the latter is - in my experience - not helpful in settings where you have constant change and evolution (as is inherently the case is a news-related environment). Khuft (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A boatload of proposals:

ITNR items will be removed if they've met either of these conditions:

• Proposal 1: Had not been posted for the last 2 occurrences the event happened.
• Proposal 2: Had never been posted but are already listed.

Furthermore,

• Proposal 3: Any new addition to the ITNR list has to be nominated for ITN/C first and has to be successfully posted for 2 consecutive times when the event happened.
• Rationales:
  • ITNR items that had not been posted for the last 3 occurrences the event happened:
    • No one is updating and/or nominating the event.
    • There's no interest from editors in doing work.
  • ITNR items that had never been posted but are already listed.
    • There's no prerequisite test in ITN/C
    • Discussion levels at ITNR are too low to be considered binding, vs. the quite heavily trafficked ITN/C page.
  • Additions to the ITNR list:
    • To prevent a stealthy addition to the ITNR list without a bigger participation of other users who may not even knew such discussions happened.
    • To make sure each new event will pass at ITN/C.

These do not concern any specific event and was to be as general as possible, but on Proposals 1 & 2 there might be removals from the ITNR list. I'd make a list of affected events later if no one beats me to it let's pretend we don't know these events are and discuss the proposals solely on merit. –HTD 13:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Proposal 3 makes sense. But I doubt anything falls under proposals 1 and 2 — ITNR items have generally always been posted regardless, simply because "it's on ITNR". —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, but some aren't because they're not updated. i remember that the Super Rugby had been bypassed several times already due to lack of updates. –HTD 13:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose proposal 1. That past occurrences didn't result in sufficient article updates / nominations is an invalid consideration. It's attributable primarily to systemic bias, which is something that we seek to counter, not promote. (Adding an additional barrier to inclusion would do the latter, and I see absolutely no benefit.)
Proposals 2 and 3 have some merit, but they're incompatible (unless an exception is added to the wording) with the "premier championship(s) of every major sport" principle currently under discussion. —David Levy 14:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Being listed on ITNR should be a privilege, not a right; if no one's adding prose on a supposedly automatic ITN item, then it doesn't deserve to be here. It's not entirely a CSB issue; these items are supposed to be ITN shoo-ins, which means there should be enough references to go around to build an article. Again, if there are no references, you can't update it, which means it can't pass ITN/C.

As for the, Proposals 2 and 3, I fail to see how the "major championship" issue fits in. Whether it's a "major sport's" championship or not (this is not even exclusive to sports). Each ITNR item should undergo a normal ITN/C discussion at least twice before people here start discussing for its inclusion in the list. If it hasn't be added ever but is on the list, I fail to see how there is consensus to be added in the first place. More so on possible additions in the list if it hasn't been discussed first in ITN/C. –HTD 13:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Status

As there has been no activity lately, and seemingly no conclusion, to the discussions above (Hurling, Poker, Euroleague Basketball, Principle), where does this leave us? Everything stays as it is for now? Khuft (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I can only imagine that those discussions get closed off as "no consensus" and we are back to where we began. Colipon+(Talk) 00:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You complained that such discussions "rarely [gather] enough participation". Then you declined to comment on the principle's proposed elimination, except to denigrate the effort by opining that you "don't see any real purpose to [the] discussion". Now you're back to expressing frustration at our failure to establish consensus. —David Levy 01:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The principal discussion is irrelevant to the hurling and poker discussions as the issue is whether those are major sports to begin with. And with Euroleague it's irrelevant too as the NBA is that sport's top competition. Hot Stop 03:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As I've explained, the idea behind the principle 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 obviously minor competitions (such as the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest and the World Series of Rock-Paper-Scissors). In the intended context, hurling and poker aren't even borderline.

Indeed, the EuroBasket discussion is unrelated to this agreement, as I noted above. —David Levy 04:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned Poker is off, Euroleague stays on. Tickers are out, by the looks of things, consolidated blurbs are looking dicey. It seems that I am also starting to suffer from the rather loud and clear realisation that nothing is going to happen. What is the point of a process "build by consensus" in which no party is willing to concede? doktorb _words^deeds 14:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)