Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Google Wars: Wikipedia edition

How the world is reading: IPL vs. NBA vs. UEFA Champions League vs. F1 in the last 3 months. Note that the NBA Playoffs only began this weekend, and the Super Bowl XLIV article generated 25,000+ views on the final. I think this (page views) should be given consideration on which goes here. –Howard the Duck 15:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe F1 figures are skewed by it being on ITN already? And I'm not sure how valid this is. [1]. Now Stanley Cup Playoffs have 861 hits, yet I've seen the Stanley Cup winner on ITN in the past and I don't think hockey is that unpopular. So is this significant enough evidence to say that the Stanley Cup winner won't be announced on ITN. Also, the IPL article on wikipedia has lots of information but is behind many many many many other sources (eg. Cricinfo.com as a main one) of information for its very large fan base. Finally, you linked to F1 season and I don't think people are opposed to announcing on ITN that Jenson Button won F1 season drivers championship but just coz he won Monacho Grand Prix which before being put on ITN had pretty much no viewership [2] suggests that that is probably not right. My two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.180.94 (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Monaco Grand Prix is a part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport so it's at ITN/R. As for F1 season articles, it's consistently the most widely viewed annually-held sports article, so even it's not at ITN it'll be at the top of the list. The NHL champion has been historically added at ITN, considering like there are more Swedes than Americans in the Detroit Red Wings, United States' Hockeytown. But its viewing stats (both at Wikipedia and on TV) are lethargic so someone has a legit case for it to be removed.

There are more stats at User:Howard the Duck/Sports article views. –Howard the Duck 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't put NHL up there if Pittsburgh win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.98.44 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Boooo. Go Pens! –Howard the Duck 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Coz Penguins don't fly, they dive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.69.223 (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Prince of Asturias Awards

• I've never heard of these before now but perhaps somebody else has. I'll leave the link here for future reference. --candle•wicke 18:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

TED awards / Nebula Award / Webby Awards

Would the TED awards / Nebula Award (other fantasy awards Bram Stoker Award Hugo Award ) / Webby Awards qualify?SriMesh | talk 02:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose the Nebula due to it limiting its winners to one country; the Webby seems to be given internationally though. --candle•wicke 23:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Google News?

Does anyone think Google News has an effect on what should be here? –Howard the Duck 03:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. Are you suggesting that what makes it onto ITN in terms of sports and awards should be determined by one single source? --candle•wicke 23:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Google doesn't publish news. They merely collect them. –Howard the Duck 06:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A proposal for domestic leagues

I know some are arguing for the introduction of domestic leagues to WP:ITNR. I have come up with a proposal in relation to this and am not sure if it has ever been discussed before. For instance, there are usually arguments regarding the Premier League as the best league in association football and so on, and suggestions that this sport should have more representation at ITN due to it global popularity. So I was wondering if it were possible to have a system to include a domestic league by virtue of evidence that the sport's continental or world governing body ranks it as number one? That would be an independent source (not the domestic league itself) regarding it highly and, since the continental or world body regards it as such, this ought to be enough to satisfy so-called "internationalness". I notice a lot of the arguments are based upon high viewing figures and google hits and claims that League X is the greatest ever. For example, does FIFA or UEFA (or whoever controls these things) keep a flexible list of the best football leagues in Europe or the world, a list that is updated regularly and has the possibility of changing from year to year or decade to decade? If so, does it regard the Premier League as being top of the list? And was it at any time in the past topped by a league from, say, Italy or Spain? Therefore, such a list (if the Premier League were on top) could in future theoretically be topped by a league from a different country and therefore it has not just reached national significance but international importance as well? That would allow the Premier League to feature at ITN in such a way as when someone complains about domesticity it could be argued that football's world rulers regard it as the highest league. But if the league were to ever slip from the top spot, that season and year would include an ITN declaring the winners of the replacement league. This leaves it open to the possibility that any league which officially rises to the top would be covered regardless of which country it is in. This avoids a scenario whereby the Premier League might decrease in relevance in a decade but still be receiving an annual ITN to the detriment of some more deserving league. --candle•wicke 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm just after seeing UEFA coefficient in the Premier League article. I think this is what I mean. The Premier League is currently ranked top of this so it would qualify under this proposal. San Marino is ranked bottom. If San Marino reached number one (I don't know how likely this is) it would qualify under this proposal. I am assuming that UEFA are independent of the Premier League? --candle•wicke 00:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the Premier League, and probably La Liga, but that (La Liga) is borderline already. –Howard the Duck 06:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the Premier League can go up without Serie A and La Liga, because in certain regions (such as South America) the latter two are bigger (due to both the cultural similarities of the countries, but also the similarity of footballing styles). There is not reason why they can't be all merged into one blurb, even with a greater focus on the PL due to its greater popularity: "In football, Manchester United are crowned Premier League champions, with Barcelona and Inter Milan winning the La Liga and Serie A titles respectively". --Daviessimo (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so that's the top three then I guess. Do all three leagues always end at once or would this lead to future awkwardness when one is decided earlier than the other two? If Italy fell out and Germany or France moved up that could work too. But it would be better to have evidence that could be pointed out to those who would complain about the unfairness of not having their country covered. What I mean is that it oughn't (in the interests of fairness) really be guaranteed that all three get ITNs forever (unless they remain the top three forever). --candle•wicke 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The normal pattern is that they finish within a week of each other, with the PL a week earlier. So for example this season the PL has just finished this past weekend and Serie A and La Liga finish next weekend. However, this year, in both instance the titles have already been decided and when this is the case I see no reason that the Spanish and Italian champions can't be put up before the final game is played. If we have a situation were it does go down to the last day for Serie A and La Liga we should deal with that when it happens. Having a quick look over the recent seasons it seems to occur maybe once every 4 or so years in the major leagues (that is a very tight race that goes to the last game). More often than not, over 38 games the title is decided beforehand. As for any potential change in the big three leagues, I think this is very slim because Spain, Italy and England are so dominant that it would take a huge power shift to change. Beyond Lyon in France and Bayern Munich in Germany, there's not enough strength in those leagues --Daviessimo (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that correct? Why are Bayern Munich not champions in Fußball-Bundesliga 2008–09 then? There is a (C) beside Wolfsburg and they are at the top... and in Ligue 1 2008–09 Lyon are behind Bordeaux and Marseille and it says they cannot win. --candle•wicke 22:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is only one year, though.

If anything that separates American "domestic" leagues from the others is that they are considered as the top competition. For example, winning the Stanley Cup is considered a part of the IIHF's Triple Gold Club, which also includes the Ice hockey at the Winter Olympics, and the Ice Hockey World Championship; the NBA is considered by FIBA as an intercontinental league (at par with the UEFA Champions League), and NBA teams have won a great majority of NBA vs. FIBA-affiliated games; for baseball, the only time a non-Major League Baseball team claimed to be the "best team of all of baseball" are the 1994 Yomiuri Giants when the MLB canceled the 1994 season when the players went on strike. –Howard the Duck 06:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I basically support candlewicke's proposal, though for me it doesn't really matter if we just put the English Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A or if we make it a rule that we put up the top three by UEFA coefficient or whatever. Those three leagues have been the top leagues for quite some time now. These domestic leagues are of clear global interest and I support finding a way to get them in. One point though, while the leagues do finish at similar times there is always the possibility that one league title will be decided several weeks before the others.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

International Football Competition

I just wondered why when the UEFA Champions League and Copa Libertadores were added to WP:ITNR, why the equivilant competitions where not added for North America (CONCACAF Champions League), Africa (CAF Champions League) and Asia (AFC Champions League). In the interests of Neutrality they should be added surely? --Daviessimo (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also just to point out they won't significantly affect the current pattern of sport items because the finish dates are (nearly) all different. For North America its March, Europe its May, South America July and Africa and Asia November. To me thats a pretty decent spread --Daviessimo (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the OFC Champions League? –Howard the Duck 23:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we are being equal, given that it is the equivilant for the Oceania region I don't see why not --Daviessimo (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's a good idea. Given the lack of interest in football in NZ and as far as I'm aware most of the other countries involved, there's probably more interest in the Rugby League State of Origin then there is this. I don't think anyone else particularly cares about the results either Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Edit: Realised I forgot to mention, for those unaware Australia pulled out of the OFC a few years back Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The FIFA Club World Cup, competed for by the winners of each of these continental competitions, should be added too. MTC (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

nah, it's not taken by the competing teams that seriously. I'd presume the European and South American champs are prouder of their continental cups than this; can't say the same for the other continents, though, especially if they defeated any or both of those two to win the tourney, which hasn't happened, BTW. –Howard the Duck 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I thinks its the age old if you win it, it's important. If you don't, it's not sort of competition. For me the issue is the regional tournaments generate far larger attendances, have more prestige etc etc and it seems biased that we only include South America and Europe. When you consider that football is one of, if not the biggest sport in Africa, I don't see an issue there. North America and Asia less so, but when you've got big nations that take the sport seriously (Mexico, China, Japan) I think its only fair. When you look at the articles, most seem established tournaments --Daviessimo (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So I guess adding the Japan Series is not that far off at all... –Howard the Duck 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a rule or Wikipedia guideline that we must strive for geographical balance even when two events are of vastly unequal importance? Including the club championships of all continents seems painfully unnecessary. I'm confident the UEFA Champions league is more popular in Asia, North America, Oceania and Africa than their own continental club championships. Having the Oceania Club Championship just because it's technically an 'international' event is plain ludicrous. I would say the Copa Liberadoras and UEFA Champions League. Maybe the African Champions League. The others, not no.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about leaving out the Asian Champions League in favor of the African one. The Asian representative in the FIFA Club World Cup had finished third in the last 2 stagings of that tourney. –Howard the Duck 10:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'd suggest we leave them both off. ITNR should be a select list.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

EuroBasket

Anyone against this one? It's the most competitive continental basketball championship for national teams. –Howard the Duck 13:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. It's a popular sport in Europe and a major event. Plus, basketball as a sport deserves more regular events than it currently has. It's also only every two years.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll test this after the EuroBasket 2009. Then we'd see how will this add up. –Howard the Duck 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been added to ITN w/o significant objections, and with this, I had added this to the list. –Howard the Duck 12:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

FIFA Confederations Cup

Put that in under world cup?  Cargoking  talk  23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a 'proper' international tournament so I don't think it can be considered an ITN regular. If you read the article on it, it hasn't even maintained a consistent format or regularity over the years. We already have the World Cup and 5 of the 6 confederation championships (why the oceanic one isn't listed I don't know but I would like that added in the interests of neutrality), which is 6/7 'international' football items already. I personally would rather see more club competitions added (see section above) because at the moment we only list them in Europe and South America, which to be is, again, biased --Daviessimo (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We can add those and this. –Howard the Duck 12:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought this just happened? Shouldn't there be some interest in posting it if it's significant? --candle•wicke 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Badminton

I've mentioned badminton before but at the time we still had few events so I didn't push it hard. Now that we've significantly expanded it I think this should be discussed again. At the very least I would say the Thomas Cup and Uber Cup should be included. And perhaps the Sudirman Cup as well. This would give 2 events in even years (since the Uber Cup and Thomas Cup will now be held at different times to give more prominence to the women's event) and 1 even in odd years if we include the Sudirman. These are of course all team events. The Olympics Games is the most prominent achievement for individual (well including doubles) accomplishment, but I don't think we're likely to mention badminton then. Therefore we could list the BWF World Championships. This would mean 3 events in non (summer) olympic even years, 2 in olympic years and also odd years presuming we include the Sudirman. In terms of popularity, IIRC (pretty sure I've mentioned this somewhere) badminton is one of the most popular spectator sports in China. See [3] which is rather old (from 2004) but one of the better comparisons I've found (I'm very sceptical of self-promoting claims made by the WBF, FIBA, FIFA etc). It's also one of the most popular in Indonesia and Malaysia, perhaps second after football (Sport in Indonesia, Malaysia is my own OR). I believe it also fairly popular in Denmark. While South Korea and Japan have had decent players in badminton in the past, I'm not so sure of the popularity there. (I've heard before from a South Korean that it isn't actually that popular there.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Support unless there are objections. However, getting one badminton nomination posted at the moment is proving very difficult. --candle•wicke 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as they are top level, major events, I support also --Daviessimo (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is one per year, it's not that excessive. –Howard the Duck 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion reorganization

Could I suggest that we better organize this discussion page? I'd suggest we have sections by topic (sports, arts, etc). Also, several topic categories are actually combining two unrelated events (like a suggestion above for the Nebula awards and the Webby awards). The way things look now it's hard to know whether to post in an existing topic or to start a new topic when you have something to discuss. Also, it seems to me that much of the poignant discussion on what events to include on ITNR actually takes place in ITN/Candidates. Is there some way to bring more of that here? --Johnsemlak (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. We could also do with some form of archiving system to store items that have been resolved and maybe a board at the top where we can guide people to ongoing discussions to try and get more input (as so manu discussions go stale unresolved). The biggest problem with this page for me, is that if someone comes to post an opinion on an item that was started 6 months ago, it can often get lost in the middle of what is now a very long page --Daviessimo (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

TV and theater

Anyone thinks these two art forms are grossly unrepresented at ITN? This stems to the fact that there are no international prominent international awards for these two. The Emmy Awards and the Tony Awards come into mind but non-U.S. (and Off-Broadway & Off-Off-Broadway for the Tonys) are not included. –Howard the Duck 07:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... can you please everyone? Someone else might be upset at the lack of knitting or gardening or whaling... --candle•wicke 00:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We had a whaling story this week, but it got pulled… Does this (from March 2009) count as a gardening story? Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

World Judo Championships

I'm afraid it is too late for this year but maybe next year? I don't know anything about the popularity of judo but it must be liked somewhere if there is a world championship each year. The medal table for the 2009 event is quite international and the list of host cities throughout its history is the same. It seems that it was held every two years but is now an annual event - 2005 in Cairo, 2007 in Rio de Janeiro, 2009 in Rotterdam, 2010 in Tokyo, etc. And, importantly for ITN, each championship has its own article. --candle•wicke 19:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why no darts?

How come darts is not in here? It's a world sport, and even though after the split in darts there are two World Championships, (PDC and BDO), they are both still a pretty big deal, with £1m total prize money on offer for the first time for the PDC 2010 tournament. I suggest automatic listing of both the BDO and PDC champions, and because they both occur around the same time (this year, the PDC final was 3 January, BDO 10 January), they could be listed together as one item. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess if we have hurling, chess and snooker we can't exclude darts. I certainly think we should restrict it to one item though. Modest Genius ^talk 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose darts, hurling and snooker unless there is something special at a specific event - like a new record set. Really, too many sports on ITN that simply are not that big. --Tone 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how chess is a bigger sport than darts. --PlasmaTwa2 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Are these two (chess and darts) even considered as "sport"? –Howard the Duck 02:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Darts is a sport, since it requires physical skill to accurately throw the dart. Chess is a game not a sport, since skill in it is entirely mental in nature. However, how is this relevant? We can always rename the section to 'Sports and games'. Modest Genius ^talk 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend but suggesting that Darts is bigger than Chess is grossly inaccurate. Several chess champions are household names worldwide (Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov). It's one of the oldest games in the world and is popular all over the world. Darts is only big in the UK.

The WP article on Chess states that chess is recognized as a sport by the IOC. In Russia, chess champions are conferred the title Master of Sport.

I oppose Darts' inclusion in ITNR, there are simply too many minor events in ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Ice Hockey

I noticed that the page does not specify that Men's Olympic Ice Hockey, from the Winter Olympics, be included. I know this was previously listed, and I'm not sure why it was removed, there are several good reasons that it be included. First of all, it is often viewed as the "premier" event of the Winter Games, at least by North American media (I'm somewhat ignorant of European views). Second of all, both in terms of popularity, media attention, and prestige, it far outweighs the IIHF World Championships which are included. It is the only Ice Hockey tournament which features all the top players, since at the aforementioned World Championship, players who are still playing in the NHL playoffs with their club teams do not participate. In fact, it may very well be the last "best on best" tournament in the foreseeable future, as the NHL, the NHLPA, the IOC, and the IIHF have yet to come to an agreement on participation in the 2014 Winter Olympics. In light of the above, would anyone oppose re-adding Men's Olympic Ice Hockey to the list? Random89 20:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If this "far outweighs the IIHF World Championships" then maybe it would be better to have this instead of the IIHF World Championships. The IIHF World Championships doesn't seem very important if the above is true. Support replacing the IIHF World Championships with Men's Olympic Ice Hockey. --candle•wicke 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with having the olympic ice hockey on the list. Didn't it used to be on there? I thought I remembered seeing the mens & womens listed, and they were combined in one item in 2006 IIRC. This is certainly the highest level international ice hockey competition (coming from a Brit who plays ice hockey). Modest Genius ^talk 23:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: Basketball at the Summer Olympics, the highest level of basketball anywhere (higher than the NBA Finals and the FIBA World Champioship, although Americans will say winning rhe NBA Finals is harder) was snubbed at ITN. See the discussion at September 2008 archives at WP:ITN/C. But of course, the Americans won so... –Howard the Duck 02:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and re-add it then (with the original wording). If it's a matter of one or the other, then every hockey fan in the world will say olympics over WC, as will the media. And yes, it was previously listed; for curiosity's sake I might try and find the diff where it was removed. Random89 07:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't I feel stupid now. Someone moved the "to be replaced by Men's Olympic Ice Hockey in Olympic years" to the footnotes, which is why I missed it. Let's all just move along then...Random89 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical: if the same country wins both the Olympics and World Championship, would that be worthy of a mention on itn? --PlasmaTwa2 18:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends, but I'd actually say the opposite. If a country besides one of the "Big 5" (Canada, Russia, Sweden, USA, Finland) or maybe the Czech Republic wins it, I'd say it's unusual enough to go up without relying on on ITNR guidelines, but a "pile-on" win probably wouldn't be. However, if when May rolls around and we're in a drought of updates, I wouldn't be opposed. I readily admit bias though, as I'm a huge hockey fan and would love to see more hockey coverage both in mainstream media and wikipedia. Random89 20:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if the USA or lower wins the world championship, it might be worthy of inclusion. --PlasmaTwa2 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

[reindent] Regarding Women's Ice Hockey it seems to me the women's event is far from justifiable on its own merits in ITN. I'm all for striving for more coverage of women's events, but I suggest featuring Olympic figure skating rather than women's hockey. That's a much bigger sport as a women's event.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Abel Prize

Abel prize announcements should be included together with Fields medal as recurring items (~1 every year). SPat ^talk 06:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Modest Genius ^talk 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Space flight

I think it's pretty clear that the current 'space exploration' entry is overly inclusive (see space in 2010 for a list of the dozens of items that are currently covered by the entry). I've therefore had a go at a better version and am offering it up for comment below. The intention would be to replace the current listing once the Space Shuttle is finally retired, mostly because it would be inconsistent to stop posting those for the last few launches. Modest Genius ^talk 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Space flight

The launch of the following forms of space flight:

• Manned space flight beyond low-Earth orbit
• Interplanetary probes
• Space telescopes located in low-Earth orbit or above
• The maiden space flights of:
  • Any new launch vehicle capable of reaching low-Earth orbit or above
  • Any new manned spacecraft capable of sub-orbital flight or above

References

Just as an explanation, this is specifically designed to exclude ISS crew rotations, but include things like Virgin Galactic's first passenger flight to space. It would include the first time a new space agency reached LEO because they would be doing it with a new vehicle. I've also excluded Earth observation satellites and communication satellites, though some scientific Earth observation satellites might be worth including (eg. GOCE, Cryosat 2). For interplanetary probes, we might also want to include the landing or orbital insertion. Modest Genius ^talk 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

well there is no reason for having manned spaceflight beyond LEO. hasnt happened in 40 years nor is it happening for many years to come. And with constellation program cancelled maybe even longer. -- Ashish-g55 18:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but in principle it would be significant, if/when it occurs. Modest Genius ^talk 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that sounding rockets should be excluded, however I feel that the criterion regarding manned spaceflight is far too restrictive and the minimum would be better set at Low Earth Orbit. This would include ISS crew rotations (about 4 per year), what's left of the Shuttle programme (3 items), the occasional Shenzhou mission, and any additional Russian flights (≤1/year, starting in 2012). Criterion 2 should be clarified. Criterion 3 excludes telescopes in higher orbits, which I feel is a bad idea. Perhaps all scientific missions should remain listed. --GW… 08:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, excluding ISS crew rotation was kinda the point, since there has been significant opposition to these routine flights at ITN/C. A particularly significant LEO flight could still be proposed through the normal procedure, plus those covered by the 'maiden flight' criterion. I'm not sure what to add to criterion 2, since a mission is either interplanetary or it isn't. Perhaps it should note 'escapes from Earth orbit' or similar? Criterion 3 does no such thing, since it includes the words 'or above'. The difficulty with listing merely 'scientific missions' is defining what is and isn't 'scientific'. As an example, is a weather satellite 'scientific'? What about the Vela satellites? Modest Genius ^talk 22:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

i think we can just add something like "Manned space flights (excluding routine crew rotations, for ex. soyuz). -- Ashish-g55 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• What is the advantage of eliminating crew rotations? --GW… 14:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Such flights have attracted significant opposition on ITN/C; generally space shuttle flights which have served as crew rotation and other tasks have been posted, but Soyuz missions purely rotating crew and supplies have not. I'm not trying to create policy here, just come up with a more sensible guideline which reflects current practise. There are plenty of reasons why crew rotation should or shouldn't be included, but I was intending that such discussion got left to ITN/C. Perhaps worth noting as 'discussed on their own merits' or something? Modest Genius ^talk 21:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the main issues with the crew rotation flights at the moment is that nobody bothers to update the articles, which is a result of systemic bias. I think we should reserve judgement until after the next Soyuz launch, and see if concerns can be addressed. --GW… 10:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I have the feeling it's more because there's really nothing to say about them. Beyond saying who the crew were, when it was launched, what it's expected to bring down and when, what else is there? Modest Genius ^talk 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We now have Soyuz TMA-18 and Soyuz TMA-19, both of which look decent enough I suppose. Modest Genius ^talk 13:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Amendment for boxing:

Instead of "Major fights that receive significant coverage, to be judged case by case", change it to "Fights in which at least one boxer is in the top three of the major world pound-for-pound rankings" and by "major" I mean the The Ring, BBC and probably Yahoo Sports. Maybe ESPN has a list too I haven't checked. –Howard the Duck 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That could result in a large number of fights qualifying automatically, regardless of who they're against or media attention. I prefer the current phrasing, and letting ITN/C work it out. Modest Genius ^talk 20:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How about both boxers in the top 3? –Howard the Duck 02:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems far more sensible. Anyone else have any thoughts? Modest Genius ^talk 18:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the rule is fine as is, we just need to use common sense. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 19:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How often does that happen? There might still be too many. --candle•wicke 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It just happened (Mayweather-Mosley). It might happen again if Pacquiao-Mayweather happens. Dunno historically... before, the heavyweight title was boxing's main news but now that non-Americans won, it has taken a back seat. –Howard the Duck 01:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Cup & Uber Cup

I've added the Thomas Cup and Uber Cup to the badminton section. I've discussed it before without anyone else objecting. This was before the BWF was added but as our article on the Thomas Cup notes, the Thomas Cup is generally considered more significant then the BWF even if these are different classes of events (individual vs team) so it doesn't mae much sense to include the BWF without the Thomas Cup. The Uber Cup too I believe although as with many women's sports it's generally less prestigious then the men's one (but still probably more prestigious then BWF women's event). So if we only want to have one, it'll probably be better to remove the BWF. I've never really pushed it before since neither in 2008 nor for the looks of it this 2010 tournament have the articles been sufficiently updated and I can't be bothered fixing them myself but I thought might as well add them even if they never actually appear on ITN. Perhaps it will encourage someone else to work on the and at least if they are updated it will hopefully reduce disputes. P.S. Ironically this year South Korea won the Uber cup for the first time ever, and China lost it for the first time since 1994 so it's even more significant but I'm still lazy to try and fix the article. Of course given that we have the UEFA, are about to have Monaco and the T20I cricket, if we did add them we'd have four sporting events on ITN which is bound to lead to complaints. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough to me. Modest Genius ^talk 16:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Davis Cup Tennis

Davis Cup certainly attracts enough attention each year to be added to this list. Kingutd (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I for one had no idea who the champions were until I just looked it up. I don't think I've ever seen coverage of this in the UK press, except when GB is playing. It's possible this is more widely followed in other countries, but is it really on a similar level to the coverage of the four majors? Oh and if we included the Davis Cup, we'd probably have to include the Fed Cup too. Modest Genius ^talk 12:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Youth Olympic Games

The inaugural Youth Olympic Games will be held in August. The IOC has begun scheduling summer and winter editions in staggered years with the Olympic Games. It's not every day that international multi-sport events are inaugurated, and considering the scale, the YOG should be considered for addition to ITN/R. Arsonal (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather opposed to adding anything to ITNR before it's run for at least a few iterations, to see if it continues to attract worldwide attention. Send it through the usual proposal process when the first event starts and take it from there. Besides, I'm not convinced 'junior' sport has the widespread appeal to justify listing. Modest Genius ^talk 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we should individually suggest each event be featured, at least for the next few iterations (perhaps until 2014 or 2016), when we get a better idea of the significance of the event. Though of course the first edition did get published on ITN. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 04:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Discoveries and official naming/recognitions of chemical elements

This should probably listed on this page. Generally every few years a new chemical element is reported, and a decade or two later it is officially recognized and named. I would guess this to come up about every one or two years (considering recent trends). The most similar thing now in the list is the Millenium Prize. A reference page would be Timeline of chemical elements discoveries. Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the entry if anybody cares. Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, though you probably should have given people more than an hour to comment! I'm not entirely convinced that making new elements is actually chemistry, it's more nuclear physics. Modest Genius ^talk 14:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought very few users check this page so I though to put it up there unless there is a consensus not to. As for chemistry vs nuclear physics I non't care about nomenclature as long as there is a rule on the announcements. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding TV stuff to ITN/R

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Emmys_.2B_BAFTA_Awards_to_ITNR. Should get a better discussion there (not sure why this page isn't redirected there anyway). ~DC _{Let's Vent} 22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Chess Olympiad

The Chess Olympiad, which is held every two years, hosting over 100 national teams, receiving attention rather than the World Chess Championship, is not part of the template. It also receives more attention than the biggest sport events in other sports, such as cricket, golf, Australian football, etc., which are mentioned in the list. Therefore, could somebody add the Chess Olympiad, along with World Chess Championship, as a recurring item. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

'It also receives more attention than the biggest sport events in other sports, such as cricket, golf' really? That seems unlikely to me, though admittedly they're popular in different regions. I've no objection to having 1.5 chess events per year, and this does seem to be the highest level of team chess (unless I've missed something). However, the article(s) will have to be an awful lot better than 38th Chess Olympiad (the last event, from 2008) to qualify for ITN regardless of what's on ITNR. Maybe it's best to see how the 2010 article turns out and make a decision then? Anyone else have any thoughts? Modest Genius ^talk 18:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the support for the entire event on the WP:ITN/C, I'll add it as a recurred in the chess section of this guide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cycling

Yes, sure the sport is in decline, but only 1 entry per year? Golf has 6 entries. There are plenty of cyclism fans in the UK and Australia, so plenty of en.wiki readers will care. I propose addition of the Vuelta and Il Giro, plus the yearly World Championships. Nergaal (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And Paris-Roubaix, the most famous one-day cobbled classic. This yr it got 3-0 votes, but wasn't posted :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball

Volleyball should probably also get a spot for the yearly World Championships. If we post all the forms of football (including Gaelic and Aussie), while badminton gets two spots and hurling, netball also, volleyball should get one spot at least. Nergaal (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

AFL shouldn't be there. Only played in half of Australia, Barassi Line YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition: New flag

The promulgation of a new flag for any country listed in the List of countries. The use of a new flag has far-reaching effects, and I'd say it's even educational, and does not occur often enough. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

But many of the articles on flags are not nearly the kind of things that are good enough to be referenced from the Main Page, and it's not like there's so much interest in the flag of, say, Angola that we can trust the article will be improved significantly by the community. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Two uninteresting countries, Malawi and Myanmar/Burma (the latter got interesting because of Aung San Suu Kyi but other than that its uninteresting), had articles improve just past ITN standards. The flag of Malawi had seen a spike in article views when it was in the section, the same instance on the flag of Burma article. There's more than enough interest about flag changes, provided people knew about it, as seen on the latest two examples.

i think Mwalcoff means people from certain country will not be interested... which obviously isnt true and i think i will support this given we have some sort of update surrounding the flag change and not just the fact that it changed. -- Ashish-g55 02:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing that "certain" country is not accepting new states or else we'd run their story every July 4. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well there's always Puerto Rico. (as an aside, would PR or any other territory becoming the 51st state be ITNed) DC T•C 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering PR has some international identity that should be... hard since it's a U.S.-only issue. :P As for PR joining, I won't see it in the long run so don't except the U.S. flag being added to ITN, if it helps/harms this proposal. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against posting flag changes to ITN. But I think we can consider each one on its own merits. There's no need to enshrine them in ITN/R and take away our discretion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We still have discretion, as you can see from the far smaller number of election stories we're publishing now compared with twelve months ago. I would say that, at the moment, pretty much every flag change of a sovereign state is going to get consensus, so should be ITNR (not really "recurring", but anyway). Maybe some subnational entities would also get consensus, but it's pretty much impossible to generate a rule for them, so we leave them off ITNR. Does that sound reasonable? Physchim62 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the point of putting either on ITN/R. Any nomination should be judged according to the quality of the Wikipedia content, the news value and reader interest. If a flag change doesn't meet those criteria, it shouldn't go up. I don't think the Flag of Malawi article is, even now, the kind of thing that should be featured on the Main Page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've pointed out at WP:ITN/C, both flag articles did had steep increases in page views when they were in the Main Page, and they are not English-speaking countries. (The flag of Burma article views jumped from less than.150 to around 8k when the news broke, and around 40k when it got to the Main Page.) Ergo, there was significant reader interest once they knew what was happening. You are forgetting/missing this aspect of "reader interest" that happens after the people heard about it. Reader interest is not just interest when the event is building up. Compare to the flag of the United States article views which is around 5k everyday. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure any item that goes on the Main Page is going to get a big increase in hits. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Depends if there is substantial interest prior to and after the event. 2010 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final did have an increase in hits (from less than a hundred, to 1k at the day of the final to ~4.2k on the days it was on ITN) but not by much as you've expected in an article linked to the Main Page for days -- the changed in the Burmese flag had more views even before it was on ITN. I've had DYKs that reach 2.5k views in 6 hours after being viewed by around 15-20/day. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So what accounts for the 50-fold leap before it was posted? Nightw 09:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that ;) and you're entitled to express your opinions. But I don't think you've won that argument, not by a long way. Physchim62 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I support this, given the obvious reader interest in the subject as seen in the jump in hits when Burma's flag was changed. Nightw 09:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the sticking point here is whether the changes are major. Slightly changing the size of a crest, or the thickness of a line etc. is not enough for ITN. But a completely new flag is. How about 'ITNR for new flags, but redesigns of existing flags should be discussed at ITN/C' or similar? Modest Genius ^talk 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'd say a complete redesign like the Lesotho, Burma and Rwanda flags should be examples. Addition of stars, changing of proportions (although I'd argue changing the color/s and/or order on a tricolor, changing of the coats of arms (wait should they be in the discussion too?) would be "major") would have to be happily discussed at ITN/C. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I also have a concern with the possibility of a very minor change being an ITNR item. My suggestion is, therefore, to simply leave flag changes off of ITNR and allow them to be judged on a case by case basis. Not being on ITNR doesn't mean we don't consider flag changes to be significant or noteworthy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that countries actually make frequent and minor changes to their official flag? Surely if this were to be a real problem, it would be voted down in ITN/C (and yes, we are allowed to refuse ITN/R items if it is deemed that there is no longer a consensus for them). Physchim62 (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One example I could find was the Flag_of_Lithuania whose ratio was changed in 2004. --Johnsemlak (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Medals

I'd like to propose that the awarding of any nation's highest military decoration (Victoria Cross, Medal of Honor and the equivalent thereof in other countries) should be an ITN/R item. Such awards tend to generate a great deal of interest in the press and tend to be very rare so we're not likely to be swamped with such items. Thoughts anybody? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

These? Grsz¹¹ 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think we can consider each of these on their own merits; there's no reason to put them in ITN/R and take away our discretion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff. It's rare in some countries, but not others, especially in times of war. Nightw 09:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We would have great difficulty dealing with countries where the highest gallantry award is handed out regularly to commanders, nepotism etc. This is a big problem for countries rules by military juntas or dictatorships, which tend to award such medals to high-ranking members of the government as a matter of course. As an example, should we be posting Kim Jong-un receiving such a medal? He almost certainly will do at some point. Modest Genius ^talk 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the only way to do this practically is to actually specify the medals that will be considered ITNR, such as the Victoria Cross or whatever. Each medal can then be judged on its own merits; as has been noted different countries may have different norms on awarding medals. I think opening ourselves to a commitment to post the highest medal of any country could have some unforeseen consequences. Frankly, actually naming the medals as opposed to having a blanket rule for medals from any country is consistent with how we do other awards. For film awards, we don't have a rule that we post the top film award for every country; we decide which film awards are notable enough for ITN and post them.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That template seems good. although the criteria perhaps can be determined. Posthumous? its a rare event anyways.(Lihaas (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

Soccer

UEFA and CONMEBOL club tournaments are here so the AFC Champions League and CAF Champions League should be too, less pov.(Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

Dunno if the AFC Champions League is that widely followed in Asia. I'd say more Asians watch the UEFA competitions. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Its broadcasted widely. The CAF one is broadcasted beyond Africa too.

Its also more neutral to add a more globalised version.(Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).

Yeah it's broadcast widely but does anyone watch it? See this example:

• 2010 AFC Champions League was viewed ~2.8k times at the day of the final.

• Korean version (one of the teams competing in the final was from the ROK) views was 150 at the final.

• 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (championship among Southeast Asian national teams) was viewed ~11.1k at the day of the second leg of the final (it had ~16.8k views at the end of the group stage). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

reading the wikipedia page at the point perhaps, i presume koreans dont really read their wiki-language page?

gaelic football page on championship day = 2.3k cfl final = 8.2k table tennis 1.6k + japan baseball, eurobasket, chess, netball, (which only a couple of commonwealth countries play) etc. I think they were there for national/global importance. in whic case these are their continental champions as the UEFA and CONMEBOL ones are there. (the CONCACAF and OFC ones i agree are much smalleR)Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is soccer we're talking about, not some fringe sport played only in Ireland. For soccer, we should at least accept events that have views of at least 10k. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That way the Suzuki cup would be validated ahead of more continentally-notable tournaments?

But beside the fringe sports, if those "fringe" games get on then why no more important ones?Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Those important ones that are not watched by many, if at all? (Note that I've opposed "fringe" sports, even mainstream ones like rugby w/c had really low view stats). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

elections

i know its obvious and posted, but we should make de hure the inclusion of supranational elections like the EU and the UN Secy gen.(Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).

Agreed, as long as its restricted to bodies of that level of importance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

can only think of EU, UN Secy Gen and Sec Council (election or taking office?)Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of international bodies (off the top of my head, the G20, G8, WTO, World Bank, IMF, ASEAN and APEC), many of which may or may not have elections. I think we need to limit it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah. yeah. i meant the notable/warranted ons. what do y ou think the limit should be?Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

American football

football is a bigger tournament than this reflects. Super Bowl apart, college football is pretty big, some would even say bigger (or from TX even High School). We cant obviously list all bowls, but the rose bowl should go on to ITN.(Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

Pfffh! Hilarious. Nightw 09:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a particularly ridiculous suggestion. American Football is fairly popular and currently only posted once per year. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? As far as I can tell, American football is simply not followed outside the US. Whilst it's plainly of greater interest than some of the other sports we post (eg. Gaelic football), I'm not sure it's major enough to merit two items. As a separate matter, college sports have attracted a lot of opposition on ITN, mostly because with all other sports we concentrate on the highest level of professional competition. And college football is even worse, since team rankings etc are determined by computer rather than competition. Modest Genius ^talk 16:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

While American Football isn't followed outside the US, Americans make up half the audience. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So? We're supposed to counter systemic bias, not reinforce it. Modest Genius ^talk 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear, here we go again. The point of ITN is most assuredly not to "counter systemic bias" by refusing to post items of interest to readers and that meet all of the other criteria. On the contrary, it is to do just that -- to feature quality Wikipedia content that readers are interested in. This attitude of "Fuck the readers" is precisely what's wrong with open-source projects with no profit motive -- people writing for themselves rather than for the public. Anyway, when it comes to sports, the only way to judge what is "important" is public interest. You can't make blanket statements like "Professional is more important than amateur" or "international is more important than domestic." If that were the case, minor league baseball (which is international and fully professional) would be bigger than NCAA football or basketball. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed replying to this until now. I think it's abundantly clear that different contributors have different ideas on what ITN is for. My own idea does not include posting items simply because they are popular (or we'd end up with continual streams of celebrity and reality TV news), and that a degree of objective 'importance' is required. Your opinion may differ on one or both of those points. But without going off on a huge tangent, I still find the argument that 'While American Football isn't followed outside the US, Americans make up half the audience.' extremely unconvincing, and I certainly don't see what that has to do with whether any particular items should be added to ITNR or not. Modest Genius ^talk 22:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there a Japanese animé about American football? Like the Prince of Tennis only that they were playing American football. So someone can argue that American football is not strictly for Americans. Still have to see rugby, cricket or hurling animés, though... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's Eyeshield 21. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

College football is massively popular. NCAA basketball has a an itnernational level to it (albeit small).

Canadian football and Gaelic football are of far smaller scope.(Lihaas (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).

Given its 4 for vs 2 against, and one of the oppose !votes doesn't make a case I think we have a consensus for this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no actual support or oppose !votes, only one of the comments even mentions the Rose Bowl, and consensus isn't a vote anyway. In the circumstances I think it would be best to run the Rose Bowl past ITN/C next time it occurs, and make a decision on ITNR after that. I notice you didn't even nominate it this year, despite the fact that it occurred whilst the discussion was going on.. Modest Genius ^talk 22:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There clearly is not a consensus here. Furthermore, the key BCS game is the championship, not the Rose Bowl. That said, I find it odd how one can fail to understand how the makeup of our audience relates to ITN decision-making. One of the goals of ITN is to direct readers to recently updated current-events articles they are interested in, and how can we figure that without taking into account who our readers are? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another proposal

Add the Daytona 500 to the Motorsport section. Second most notable race in the United States after the Indianapolis 500, and is known internationally. Nascar1996 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's noteworthy enough, feel free and add it in the list above. Thus, it'll get included in the discussion of the other already proposed items.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Nascar1996 13:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

He meant add it to the list under discussion on this talk page (above), not to the actual ITNR page. I've reverted and added to the list Kirl meant. Modest Genius ^talk 18:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm not that familar with the news section. Nascar1996 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposals on ITN/R inclusions

Based on some recent discussion I feel like we could make a few changes, particularly under sports. So, I'm making a few proposals for changes. Grsz¹¹ 14:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to add. Grsz 11 15:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Add the additional Grand Tour (cycling) events in addition to the Tour de France:

Vuelta a Espana

Giro d'Italia

This increases stories per year in cycling from 1 to 3.

Comments

• Oppose. There are too many sports events on ITN/R already, and I'm opposed to removing the ones you plan to remove to put these cycling events in.

Neutral. Cycling is a reasonably well-followed sport, in many places. But our article coverage of those two events is very poor, and I'm not sure they're really that well followed compared to, say, the UCI Track Cycling World Championships. Modest Genius ^talk 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Similar rationale to MG, but for me the same rationale amounts to opposing addition to ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2010 (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 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to remove. Grsz 11 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Remove the AFL Grand Final, reducing Australia rules football stories from 1 to 0 per year, as it is of little international significance. It can, of course, still be nominated and discussed each year.

Comments

• Oppose. Australia has the fourth-most readers on the English Wikipedia. The AFL Grand Final is the biggest annual sports event in Australia. "International significance" is not an ITN criterion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the premier championship of Australian rules football. We have longstanding (and sensible, in my opinion) consensus to automatically include the premier championship[s] of every major sport, provided that the appropriate article updates have occurred. As Mwalcoff noted, "international importance or interest" no longer is a criterion (because it proved highly illogical and counterproductive). —David Levy 02:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see why international significance needs to play into every item. Australia is the fourth-largest source of readers here; to say their largest sporting event isn't notable makes no sense. --PlasmaTwa2 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose - extremely popular sport, albeit over a small geographic area. Modest Genius ^talk 18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. The AFL Grand Final is a very significant event for Australia and gets a decent amount of armchair interest elsewhere.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2010 (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 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to remove. Grsz 11 15:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Remove Grey Cup, reducing Canadian football stories from 1 to 0 per year, as it is of little international significance. It can, of course, still be nominated and discussed each year.

• Oppose. Canada has the third-most readers on the English Wikipedia. The Grey Cup is the biggest annual sports even in Canada in years in which there is no Canadian team in the NHL Finals. "International significance" is not an ITN criterion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the premier championship of Canadian football. We have longstanding (and sensible, in my opinion) consensus to automatically include the premier championship[s] of every major sport, provided that the appropriate article updates have occurred. As Mwalcoff noted, "international importance or interest" no longer is a criterion (because it proved highly illogical and counterproductive). —David Levy 02:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see why international significance needs to play into every item. Canada is the third-largest source of readers here; to say that our largest sporting event isn't notable makes no sense. --PlasmaTwa2 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as well, but @Plasma, isn't the Stanley Cup far bigger in Canada than the Grey Cup? (though I'm assuming you're not considering it to be a 'Canadian' event in the same way Canadian Football is).--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Stanley Cup is a seven-game series, and as far as I know the Grey Cup is the most watched-sporting event in Canada on an annual basis. Plus, half the time the Stanley Cup Finals don't even have a Canadian team in it. :P --PlasmaTwa2 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a fair amount of Canadians in the Stanley Cup, regardless of whether the teams are American. Still, I'm impressed to learn that teh Grey Cup actually is that significant compared with Hockey in Canada. Reaffirm oppose removal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2010 (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 4

Remove the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, reducing Gaelic football stories from 1 to 0 per year, as it is of little international significance. It can, of course, still be nominated and discussed each year.

• Oppose. This is the premier championship of Gaelic football. We have longstanding (and sensible, in my opinion) consensus to automatically include the premier championship[s] of every major sport, provided that the appropriate article updates have occurred. "International importance or interest" no longer is a criterion (because it proved highly illogical and counterproductive). —David Levy 02:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• CommentThe issue then is, is Gaelic football really a major sport? Same goes for the other sports. Grsz¹¹ 02:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an iffy one for me. I'm inclined to allow the biggest sporting event in Ireland. On the other hand, we have too many sports events on ITN, and there just aren't that many people in Ireland. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what happens when exporting them is "a massive, relentless, and efficiently managed national enterprise". Though it has apparently provided prime ministers and presidents for the UK, Canada, Mexico, United States, Australia, Israel, Argentina, Chile, France... and Tokelau. --candle•wicke 03:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What that has got to do with anything? I don't think Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (why is that even disambiguated?) knows New York GAA even exists. Ireland also only has 0.6% of the total page views. Heck are we going to add the Malaysian FA Cup too? When I saw that on TV the entire stadium was filled with people wearing yellow T-shirts.

Then again why should I even support the removal of this item when I'd lose a topic to laugh about every year? So oppose removal. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not post the Malaysian final as well? I didn't know Malaysia had its own sport and have never seen it proposed so wasn't able to support it at the time. It seems to have been around since 1990 (whereas this has been around since the 1880s) but why not if it is updated... --candle•wicke 03:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What has age got to do with anything? The Super Bowl started in the late 1960s and it has now has higher TV ratings (at least in the U.S.) as compared to say, the World Series which began in 1876. In fact no other annual sporting event comes close to Super Bowl in terms of TV ratings.

And does that mean you're also in favor of adding whatever final in countries that has at least 0.6% of English Wikipedia's traffic? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• After giving much thought, support removal for both GAA events:
  1. Too little interest outside Ireland. I'm not sold on New York GAA being popular in NYC, nor in Australia (both 2010 the 2010 International Rules Series article views and International Rules Series article views barely reached 1,000 views on games held outside Ireland, and Australia has a larger population than Ireland!)
  2. No significant reports outside the "British" Isles.
  3. Negligible article views
  4. And as stated by someone below (probably User:Grsz11), I don't know enough about the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship to judge here." If no one doesn't know enough about a sport outside from those who know it (seriously, I know how cricket works and I haven't seen a match, can't say the same for these two), I can't say it's "international enough" to be here.
  5. The classification of Gaelic football as a "major sport" is disputed. I'd also say so for hurling. I'd even say curling is more popular in China than hurling.
  6. The argument that "it's old" or "the Irish diaspora cares about it" doesn't hold much water.
• –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Support removal as per HTD.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Support removal per HTD. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I've removed it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've restored it. Both of us participated in the discussion, so neither of us is qualified to determine its outcome.

In my opinion (which counts no more than yours, of course), the above rationales are either illogical or irrelevant.

• "The classification of Gaelic football as a 'major sport' is disputed."
  While we have no precise definition of what constitutes a "major sport," we certainly had nothing nearly this strict in mind when we established the principle that their premier championships automatically qualify for inclusion (provided that appropriate article updates occur). We intended to exclude stuff like this, not one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland.
• "Too little interest outside Ireland." / "No significant reports outside the "British" Isles"
  As noted in my initial response, international interest isn't an inclusion criterion. And even when it was, we agreed to make an exception for sport championships (many of which are widely followed primarily within one country or a small number of countries). If I recall correctly, it was frustration with the "international interest" criterion's application that triggered discussion (leading to the aforementioned principle) in the first place.
• "Negligible article views"
  We know that Gaelic football is one of the two most popular spectator sports in Ireland. We don't know what's causing a lack of attention at Wikipedia, but removing it from WP:ITN/R obviously won't encourage editors to update the relevant articles for the benefit of readers. (Keep in mind that unless and until this occurs, the events won't be mentioned in ITN anyway; inclusion at WP:ITN/R doesn't override the content update requirement, so there is no danger of neglected articles receiving blurbs.)

Please allow an uninvolved user to evaluate the arguments and gauge consensus (or the lack thereof). Thank you. —David Levy 17:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to this one. This is slightly confusing, because HTD has !voted both ways, and his rationale for the second (support removal) is rather strange. If this were an AfD (and I was an admin) I'd be relisting to gain more comments. Perhaps we should try running this one past people again. Modest Genius ^talk 18:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems sensible. —David Levy 19:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that Gaelic games were restored, and the arguments used in restoring them, I've withdrew my opposition to inclusion and instead fully supports their addition along with other national sporting events from other larger countries. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Add the FIVB World Championships, increasing stories for national team volleyball from 0 to 2 every four years.

• Strong oppose. Volleyball is not a major spectator sport in any country with a lot of English Wikipedia readers. Few of our readers likely care, or are even aware, of the FIVB World Championships. There are too many sports events on ITN/R already. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Hey I'd support the women's event. This is a quadrennial event we can live w/ one mention every 4 years. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support for addition. Once every two years would hardly be too much volleyball for ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Support per Johnsemlak. It is an Olympic sport and once every two years isn't a hell of a lot to ask. --PlasmaTwa2 19:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: The women's championship had been (contentiously) added. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 6

"Boxing: Major fights that receive significant coverage, to be judged case by case"

• This is unhelpful. If it's "case-to-case" it shouldn't be here. Either remove or rephrase this. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Not sure how it ended up with that phrasing, which I agree is entirely unhelpful. Modest Genius ^talk 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reformulation: "Boxing: Fights in which a boxer can win his Quintuple Championship or higher, or fights that involve both boxers in the top three of at least three world pound-for-pound lists."

That's a complex criterion. I'd say let's apply Occam's Razor and just leave boxing up to discretion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We can use the first part: being a Quintuple Champion is being a part of an exclusive club and happens rarely. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 7

Add Ultimate Fighting Championship pay-per-views that features the heavyweight championship as the main event. Comparison:

• UFC 121: 385.2k views
• 2010 FIFA World Cup: 244.0k views
• Super Bowl XLIV: 188.7k views
• All-Ireland Senior Football Championship 2010: 2.3k views
• All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship 2010: 794 views

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Slight oppose I would rather wait until the next time the Heavyweight championship is defended to make an opinion on this one. With Lesnar no longer champion there could be a drop in interest. From my standpoint, I would also have a problem putting multiple UFC events up per year when WrestleMania is not not included on ITN. --PlasmaTwa2 21:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably lean towards leaving UFC out of ITNR and let it be nominated on its own merits first. If it is nominated an gets decent support at least once, then we can consider going further. Personally, I find mixed martial arts a bit hard to judge. I know they are very popular (I'm a teacher and loads of my students follow it). They get little coverage as far as I can see in mainstream sports media though, and are still struggling to get acceptance as a recognized sport. I might theorize that the high amount of page views indicated above might be due to the lack of any decent information on UFC from other sources.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose. We should not be posting something purely based upon the broadcast payment options. Modest Genius ^talk 20:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: broadcast payment options? Aren't these PPVs? Although I've heard a cable channel in the U.S. airs this on tape delay. Note that UFC 123 had significantly less views than those that had the heavyweight championship as the main event. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose addition I see no reason for ppv events to be added that appeal to a small swath of the population. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Open proposals

I feel rugby union stories can be reduced. Super Rugby is for club teams in countries that participate in the Rugby Union Tri Nations, representing just three countries. The Heineken Cup features teams from six countries.

I don't think there are too many, and those are the two highest club rugby tournaments in the world. Because they operate in different hemispheres, they're of similar standard and don't overlap. If we include one we really should include the other. Modest Genius ^talk 18:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's too much Rugby Union on ITNR. While I am not an expert on the sport, the people who I know who are rubgy union fans show far greater interest in international matches than club rugby. Also the articles for the tournaments mentioned above are often not up to scratch.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason why there's too much rugby union is because we have to add two, the northern and southern hemisphere, competitions. Either you add both or don't add them and most of the time, people here would rather add both. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither the 2010_Super_14_season#Final nor the 2010_Heineken_Cup_Final were even nominated earlier this year. I'd say drop the club events. I'm not a rugby fan of any code but I've watched a number of matches and I know plenty of serious fans and it seems clear to me that the international matches are the most important events by some margin.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I can speculate on why the Heineken Cup wasn't nominated -- no teams from British Isles, especially the island which is not "British" made it to the final. As for the Super 14 I don't think it ever made it past the nomination stage since no one bothers to update it w/ prose. The tournaments among international teams are annual tournaments anyway so we won't lose ITN's rugby fix. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing about those club rugby finals is that they finish at a busy time in the sports calendar (late May), with football leagues finishing, the Champions League, the French Open, and with the Stanley Cup and NBA around the corner, just for starters.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning on a Euroleague test case, which also ends at about the same time (but in early May) so I dunno how that fact comes into play. Was there also a previous consensus of adding the Premier League, Serie A and La Liga individually too? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Last year there was a discussion on these boards (or possibly WT:ITN that agreed to combine the EPL, Serie A, and La Liga into a single blurb. However, this year I think the EPL winner was simply posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship to judge here.

Move to close:

1. Grand Tours of cycling: No consensus to be added
2. AFL Grand Final: Oppose removal
3. Grey Cup: Oppose removal
4. All-Ireland Senior Football Championship: In AFD terms, "relist"?
5. FIVB World Championships: No consensus to be added.

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)