Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

(Closed) Proposed Addition: Domestic Football Leagues

Closed, with La Liga and the Bundesliga added to ITN/R, and Serie A taking a trial run at WP:ITN/C next year. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently, following Bayern Munich's successes in the Bundesliga, there has been a nomination made at WP:ITN/C to have it posted to the main page. This has conjured debate about the prominence of the domestic leagues, and whether or not they merit a place at ITN/R. At present, only the Premier League is listed, and this is a proposal to expand that. I feel that club football is underrepresented at ITN, and this proposal seeks to remedy this, as well as clarifying some things regarding how European club football operates, as there appears to be confusion about this.

However, given the sheer number of domestic leagues, posting some could cause an inundation of nominations, so we should define significance and importance here in this discussion. For the purposes of debate, I shall consider only the four most prominent leagues, as determined by their respective UEFA coefficients (given that these are calibrated based on performance in Europe, rather than prestige or importance, this is not ideal, but it is the fairest metric to apply in avoiding bias). At present, these leagues are:

I feel that there is an argument to be made that all of, or at least a subset of, these leagues warrant a place at ITN/R given their significance. Football/Soccer is the largest and most popular sport in the world, and is of major interest to our readership. As such, placing them on the main page fulfills the primary aim of ITN - To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. As such, I feel that here is an appropriate forum to discuss the place of the aforementioned leagues with respect to ITN, and determine if any/all of them are to be added. Obviously, article quality would be crucial, but even then, articles on football tend to be respectable and in depth, particularly for major leagues, thanks to WikiProject Football, and given the plethora of media coverage are easy to cite.

N.B. - regarding the UEFA Champions League, a common misconception that arises at ITN is that this is a higher level league (a fault of the name, perhaps), and supersedes the domestic leagues, in a similar manner to how the Playoffs supersede the Divisions in the NFL. However, this is not the case - the Champions League, as well as the Europa League (another level down), are run by UEFA, a separate organisation, and take place during the domestic football season. They run concurrently, and are completely separate tournaments. The domestic leagues have prestige, history and prowess all on their own, and ultimately account for the bulk of a club's time during the season.
It is further worth noting that these leagues draw to a close around the same time as each other every year, opening the possibility for combined blurbs if space is required at ITN. Not crucial, and such blurbs have a tendency to be unwieldy, but worth noting nonetheless.

Let the much-needed discussion commence, I suppose. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - for what it is worth, I would support the accession of all three other leagues to ITN/R, but would be satisfied to see any of them make it, as all are noteworthy, significant contests. In descending order of significance, I would personally consider them, to the audience of en.wiki, PL, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, but that is just my two cents. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought it had become established practice that an item pass at ITN/C before it goes up to ITN/R. Also, why only these four countries? Of the 55 UEFA members, whose national championships are "notable"? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, La Liga, for starters, has been posted on multiple occasions, and the four leagues picked have been determined by UEFA to be the most important (hence they are given four Champions League spots apiece), and would have the most prestige at international level. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
If UEFA has indicated in an RS those four are the most notable, then it's a no-brainer. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
As of this press release, additional spaces in the Champions League are given to the four highest ranked leagues, which are the ones listed above, according to this table. The additional significance of this quartet is clear in UEFA's eyes, they are given additional space to compete in UEFA's premier event, and as such are the league which I propose we add. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'm still neutral because I think that sport is already overrepresented, and this isn't SportsPedia, and these events are already covered in the es, de and it wikis, and it stinks of Euro-centrism leaving out important leagues in Brazil and Argentina, instead of having "how odd" screamed at me over and over again, I'll drop it. Open wide for some soccer!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no such requirement. A successful ITNC nomination can help suggest an ITNR, but you can start an ITNR without any ITNC if you can argue why it should be ITNR. --Masem (t) 18:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
And yet, it's been an issue again, and again. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
That's different - if something has been put to ITNC and routinely not posted due to importance (not quality), then that works against its favor for an ITNR. But as you just gave as an example, consensus can also change. --Masem (t) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly right, so lets see consensus at ITN/C, then it'll work in favor of this nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The clock has now started – how long before someone mentions that canoe frenzy in "London, England", TBR? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"canoe frenzy" I LOL'd. Thanks TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I propose "TRM's Law" as a corollary to Godwin's Law for topics at ITN. The longer the discussion goes on for, the more likely the Boat Race will come up. --Masem (t) 21:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
For such things TRM supports, the boat race. For things TRM opposes, gun violence in America. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem as I see it is that sport is inherently spirited. More than any other topic, editors actively seek out that criteria that reinforces their pre-conceived notion of any event's relevance. It takes little effort to find editors expounding and rejecting the same rationale as the topic movies from college basketball to college canoe frenzies. This will never be solved until we settle on some objective criteria. GCG (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • To me, ITN seems more suited to one-time events such as League Cups than to the results of a months-long season such as the EPL or Bundesliga. There's an inevitable minor bias towards events in English-speaking countries, and I'm fine with the status quo of only listing the EPL and Champions League on ITN/R. If there's a consensus against that, I'd support either adding La Liga and Bundesliga (Serie A and Ligue 1 feel less critical to me), or removing the EPL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Support I've changed my mind. If we include the American NCAA football championship, we should include all of these leagues, and probably the French and Russian leagues as well (assuming there aren't practical issues with them all being decided at the same time). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • We quite infamously DON'T include the American NCAA football championship, and no one is even suggesting adding the French and Russian leagues. Argentina should be next on this particular slippery slope. GCG (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. List of professional sports leagues by revenue says these are the top 4 non-American sports leagues in the World. That's for all sports and not just football. Revenue and public interest are closely related. They are also the best football leagues in the World (Brazil might interfere, hard to compare due to lack of matches). Europe has the best leagues because they can buy the best players. UEFA coefficient#Current ranking shows these 4 leagues are well ahead of number 5. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support as long we are clear that these four are picked because the UEFA has clearly identified them as the four key national tourneys, and thus why we don't need to include the other 30-some, and do not expect to include ITNCs from these other national ones (Barring unique circumstances), then this seems reasonable. I'm worried someone's going to accuse us of bias here, hence that if this is indeed added, we need to be clear about the UEFA's importance in the ITNR text blurb. --Masem (t) 21:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Which would mean what for South America (no true football fan could deny the S.American influence and importance to the game). Where would the Brasilian & Argentinian leagues (the top ones down there) come? The UEFA UK/Italy/Spain/Germany connection is less about quality and more about money. UEFA makes most of its funding from competition broadcast rights. To do that it must have the teams from the most populous and football-watching countries competing in order to justify the cost and make sure bids are high. UEFA also (unsurprisingly) invests the most money in those countries. Its a far more complicated relationship than 'UEFA just thinks they are the best'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support La Liga, EFL and Bundesliga but oppose Serie A. Domestic football is a big deal, dominates the attention of the sports pages and very often becomes front page news for various reasons. It's inherently arbitrary which leagues we make ITN/R and which we don't. Some leagues are clearly bigger deals than others (in terms of attendance, TV audiences, revenue or attracting top talent from other countries), but even then there's no unarguable way of ranking. For me, the list goes La Liga, EFL, Bundesliga, Serie A/Ligue 1 -- and the arbitrary line of ITN/R-ness qualifies the top 3 but that's just my 2 cents.
For what it's worth, I'm relatively satisfied that the Euro-centric nature of this is a reflection of the state of the sport - although South America has many great players, they tend to play for European clubs (for example, see the clubs of the current Brazil squad) --LukeSurl t c 09:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Serie A has more ghits than all the other leagues, I'm not so sure. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 07:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm perfectly okay with this, but we need to reopen the discussion on College Football, whose revenue dwarfs these leagues. GCG (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Propose removal then. This is Europedia after all, we can't have something from the United States on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't really care where we draw the line, but we need to apply the same standard to Europe and the US. GCG (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Actually, this is nothing to do with Europe vs the US, this is to do with a global sport which has a truly international audience, including those of us outside Spain, Germany and Italy who actually watch La Liga, Bundesliga and Serie A. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you for making my point for me. ITN policy of course precludes opposing "an item because the event is only relating to a single country," yet this is routinely used to oppose the CF nomination. The other major points are that it's amateur (yet we post amateur boat frenzies, basketball and the Olympics) and that it's second tier; this nom is quite explicitly enshrining three more second tier competitions in ITNR. ghost 12:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support adding these 4 leagues' season winners exclusively as ITN/R. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 07:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cricket is the 2nd most popular sport in the world, so are we going to do similar ITN/R listing for multiple domestic T20 cricket leagues? I guess not. Moreover, these leagues culminate around the same time which will result in an all-football ITN. Even if it's a combined blurb, it would be too cluttering. Also, why the four most prominent leagues? Why not just three or may be five most prominent leagues? --Uncle Sargam (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let it stew for a while, and I believe sport is already overrepresented, and this isn't SportsPedia, and these events are already covered in the es, de and it wikis, and it stinks of Euro-centrism leaving out important leagues in Brazil and Argentina. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Not really, we've already noted that all the best players in the whole world play in Europe, and that the best clubs in the world are in Europe and the best football in the world is played in Europe. Even FIFA recognise that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Six members of this years man-city squad were from non-EU countries. I imagine there are a few more footballers than that in all of South America. "We collected the best players, so just ignore the rest of the world." Euro-centric bias at it's finest. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Irrelevant. Many members of the All Blacks are from the Cook Islands, but no-one cares about how well the Cook Islands rugby team are doing. It's not about the origins of the players, it's about the competitions in which they play. It's not "Euro-centric bias at it's (sic) finest", it's about reporting news items that of interest to our readers, and since our readers are interested in the finest football the world can offer, that'd be found in the top four leagues in Europe and nowhere else. Even FIFA agree with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @LaserLegs: - We post the Super Bowl as the elite level of American football, ignoring players in other nations, even when some very talented, Super Bowl-winning players, originate elsewhere - see Sebastian Vollmer for an example. Your rationale could just as easily be applied in this scenario, or for the NBA and Tony Parker, and is ergo redundant. TRM is also correct in his assertions in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It's one point as part of a whole. My point is you want to post five soccer games a year, ALL from the EU ... when there are top leagues fielding top players in South America which are getting no mention. Neither of those statements is true of "American football" or of basketball. Eurocentic bias I'm afraid, plain and simple. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not quite. We want to post the results of the top five association football leagues in the world. There are no better leagues in South America, North America, Asia, Africa, or Australasia. It's fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It’s a fact that elite football is centred on Europe, and these are the four biggest leagues both in terms of history and UEFA coefficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support La Liga, Premier League & Bundesliga but oppose Serie A. Those are the three top leagues in the world and whilst there's no clear dividing line, Serie A isn't the force it used to be. You could argue it's no better than the French or even Dutch leagues. I'm comfortable with three domestic tournaments for the world's most popular sport, but let's not go overboard. Modest Genius talk 10:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • So this would take the number of expected soccer stories per year from 5 [1] to 7 or 8 .... what is enough for "the worlds most popular sport"? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
      • 7-8 seems about right, given that golf, horse racing and rugby all get 4+. I think more than three domestic leagues would be too much, but the other entries are for international or continental competitions. Modest Genius talk 18:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support La Liga and Bundesliga but not Serie A. La Liga, Premier League, and Bundesliga are the three strongest leagues in the world, and as an American I can attest that they are the only three that receive regular television coverage on national TV networks in the United States, which is just one piece of evidence for their global reach. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've seen Serie A on antenna TV in New York City. It might've been Univision, Telemundo or Azteca though (Spanish language channels). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, and would also support Ligue 1 per PrimeHunter. By revenue, these are the #4, #6, #7, #8, and #10 sports leagues in the world right now; and in Europe they're routinely referred to as the "Big Five." We post the winners of every other league in the top 10. There is the danger of regionalism, but there are no other leagues that really compete in terms of revenue. However, I would be willing to add the Copa Libertadores for South American representation, and while I'm currently a weak oppose on the Campeonato Brasileiro, I'd be willing to consider that as well. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC))
"We post the winners of every other league in the top 10." uhmmmm no, we don't actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The remaining five are NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and Formula One. To my knowledge we do post all of those. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh I understand your comment now. In that case, do you have some ref to back your list of "the top 10 sports leagues" --LaserLegs (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It referred to my posting of List of professional sports leagues by revenue. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the thing people seem to be missing is we post American baseball, and Japanese baseball. American Football and Canadian football. Australian Rubgy and some other rugby. We get some regional diversity that way. You want to post five European national leagues, and the FA cup. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Soocer is easily the world's largest sport, so I don't think this would result in an undue number of postings. Having the EPL as the only domestic league is systemic bias, particularly when La Liga is arguably a stronger league (as illustrated by Champions League success in recent years). Neljack (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - discussion was archived without closure of any kind, so I am restoring it and awaiting uninvolved action. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • LOL, really? "Discussion was archived without consensus but I really want all these soccer items to be ITN/R so I'll drag it out of archives and give it another 30 days." The Italian and German one either weren't even nominated at ITN/C or failed because the article were crap. La Liga was also crap but I think we posted it? Anyway ... come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: - the discussion was automatically archived, and has not been closed one way or another. If no uninvolved admin closes it within a reasonable timeframe, then it needs to be put back. No further discussion is required - just a closure or invocation of consensus. A discussion with multiple !votes and discussion went completely unacted upon, either through support for amending ITN/R or opposition, and you're of the opinion that it is unreasonable to revive it until such judgement arrives? Come on. The fact that you think soccer is over-represented does mean that admins should just ignore stuff. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and that "crap" article about the Bundesliga was not only nominated, but posted, back in April. Check again. Regarding Serie A, that league is the one with the least consensus to add, so take it or leave it. That's not a rationale to ignore the other two, in any way, shape, or form. And I find the "no consensus" argument to be patently incorrect. While not ideal (and it is not a straight vote to get into ITN/R), a quick head count leaves us at 12-2 in favour of adding La Liga and the Bundesliga (overwhelming consensus in my opinion), and 9-5 for Serie A. No, what I see is a strong case of an aggrieved editor who opposes adding European soccer because they don't like it, even when consensus is against them, and they are complaining about a routine restoration as such. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't like it? Nah, it's just systemic bias is all. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: - having just finished this, I can assure that most of Wikipedia is already pretty open. World Cup, baby! - Stormy clouds (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Weird, I didn't see any European leagues on that list, and FIFA world cup is already ITN/R. Were you suggesting we add the NBA draft pick? /s --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment since this is basically guaranteed to happen, you may as well add La Liga and maybe the German one too, but the Italian one has never made it past ITN/C which is an unwritten rule for ITN/R noms for some reason (see women's FIFA host city selection outrage above). --LaserLegs (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Stormy clouds: @The Rambling Man: I was the only oppose, and I no longer care if you add La Liga and Bundesliga (get Serie A through ITN/C first and we'll talk). If you can live with that, then either one of you should just add them to ITN/R and close this. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support all four. There are only four leagues which contribute four slots to the Champions League, so it's clear they are considered on a different level from the others. Banedon (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added La Liga and the Bundesliga to ITN/R given the consensus. If someone less involved sees consensus for Serie A, I'll let them pop in on there too. Otherwise, I think we are done here. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Has Serie A ever been added to ITN? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: - the last time the Serie A was nominated was in [[2]] (it was posted). Digging through the archives, for the last five years, one sees every single year, that there is a discussion regarding Serie A and how it is more important than the item being nominated. However, no one actually nominated it in that timeframe. So yes, it has been added to ITN, but not for a while. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Can we do a trial nomination next year, and if that goes through, then we'll add it immediately based on this discussion? That we won't open a new discussion adding that, if ever, since we have already discussed it? Usually ITN/C confirms ITNR consensus, not the other way around, but I guess no one would be angry at this... Howard the Duck (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I would personally be fine with this. Gauge the aptitude of editors to get it ready for ITN, and gauge viewer interest. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It's been seven years, if anyone actually bothers to nominate Serie A next year, and it passes, take it here. Soccer is the most important thing in the universe, I promise I won't oppose. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
There were also several opposes to Serie A in this nom, so I think it needs to stand on it's own. Suggest close. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2018 (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.

Remove "IMPAC" from "International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award"

The award itself has removed "IMPAC" from its name, and the award has been known as the International Dublin Literary Award since 2015. Bagoto (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Just do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Uncontroversial and we don't include sponsor's names in these entries anyway. Modest Genius talk 10:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Heads of state and government redux

Listen, we're suddenly into three separate proposals. That's stupid. One at a time, please. Right now it's tempting to shut down all chat here and start up in light of the commentary on each proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is an attempt to follow on from the first two, neither of which have consensus and don't look at all likely to get it. By all means close those, but my one hasn't been open long enough to gain enough commentary for a new proposal to offer anything else yet. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove heads of state and government

This came out of a suggestion above, discussing on it's own. Lets just get rid of all the heads of state and government bits and only keep "the results of general elections". We can then consider special cases on their own merit. I'd be fine with continuing to name the leader of the party that won the general election (be it Donald Trump, Theresa May, Imran Khan, whatever). To be clear, we just delete all of this: 

   The results of the elections for head of state:
       * In those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where the head of state is an elected position
       * Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included

   The succession of a head of state:
       * In those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where head of state is not an elected position.

   Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits. If election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted.

The "problem" we're trying to fix here, BTW, is double posting elections in cases like Pakistan where the head of state is a sham position elected later, or the United States where the general election chooses people for the electoral college which then elects a head of state (of course, we don't do that, but if we stuck to ITN/R as written we would).

Update: The last sentence would be replaced with: "Changes to the head of state or head of government are discussed on their own merits."

  • Support as nominator --LaserLegs (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I believe we are capable of handling these on a case-by-case basis. Lepricavark (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Because I can tell that in the future it will come up, someone will try to argue that small, non-influential countries should not have any head of state/gov't change posted because its not significant/well-covered, we really should have language that is clear that any change of head of state or gov't (whether by election or other method) should be decided on a case-by-case basis, but should be neutral with respect to the country (as long as it is a recognized country). We don't want people arguing that tiny countries their elections posted because they are not influential; size/population should carry no weight in these ITNC discussions. --Masem (t) 02:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment - No one has been able to show me convincing evidence of any consensus on this matter in the original discussion, and to this day I see the obsession with elections and sovereign states as political entities to be based on a false premise that any group of people selecting a leader is a notable event in and of itself regardless of the size of the political entity, vis-a-vis other encyclopedic topics of significance. Therefore I remain opposed to posting election outcomes of small states and micro-states. Colipon+(Talk) 13:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Masem: under this proposal, most heads of state/govt changes won't be posted, only the results of general elections. There will be some bickering, sure, but that's ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
      • My only concern is that when we start getting into case-by-case, we should making sure it is not an issue of the size/importance of the country; if we are debating whether to post a "sham" head of state change, whether the country is big or small should be involved in that discussion as long we're talking a recognized country and a legitimate position within that country. --Masem (t) 19:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would suggest that the last sentence remain, with head of state added to it and maybe something along the lines of what Masem suggests. Perhaps "Changes to head of state and head of government are discussed on their own merits, but should be neutral with respect to the country involved." 331dot (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in any of the suggested forms, but prefer "Changes to the de facto chief office of executive authority in each generally-recognized sovereign state shall be considered important." This ropes in Putin and Burma. ghost 11:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support any of the above recommended changes.--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man:: Could use your input here, since a consensus may be starting to develop...--WaltCip (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • While I support the removal of [figure]heads of state that hold symbolic power from ITNR - mainly because most don't affect the daily running of a sovereign state like a head of government would - this proposal overreaches and excludes states that don't use general elections to select their leaders (i.e. China, Saudi Arabia, Westminster parliaments that switch majority party leaders between elections). "...discussed on own merits" is redundant. Any event nominated at ITNC is "discussed" so why state this on ITNR? The point of ITNR is not to argue over the intricacies of nation/sport/award A and nation/sport/award B. I'd like to see this removal merged with the previous section above and have Changes to leaders whose offices constitutionally administer the executive or legislature of a sovereign state be added instead. Fuebaey (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Leaving it to ITN/C is just a recipe for arguments about the significance of a given country (especially for medium-weight countries) and about whether we should post the position with actual power, or the position with nominal power, or both, and complaints about how we treated one country relative to another. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
With no prejudice to the rest of your argument, I would like to think that it's been established that any change in ITN/C instruction wording regarding head-of-state elections would include discouraging if not outright forbidding arguments based on "significance" of a country.--WaltCip (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
That's certainly the spirit of what those supporting want, but I'm not seeing any evidence of this being written down anywhere, let alone agreement on how it should be worded. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: under this proposal, we'd still post the outcomes of general elections, just not the formality of appointing the head of state. I'm actually trying to reduce bickering and close a loophole being used to push blurbs to the MP with the justification "It's ITNR we have to do it" even if it doesn't make sense -- as in the case of the Pakistani president. I see you're not opposed to the other proposal above, if you have alternative wording, PLEASE I'm begging you, please offer it. @Fuebaey: had a good suggestion for wording I think everyone could agree with. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • So, I see three points of discussion. 1 - what countries qualify? Pretty simple answer: "of a sovereign state" 2. When do we post? Easy answer, hard to word: when it becomes clear who it will be. 3. What office gets posted? Again, easy answer, hard to word: we want the head honcho, not the figurehead. I submit:
   Succession to the office of chief executive authority of a sovereign state. Where, by election or designation, the designee for such office is determined more than three days prior to succession, the election or designation would be posted.

Which office actually HAS "chief executive authority" should be obvious in any specific case. ghost 12:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose for reasons similar to that of Thryduulf. While I recognise that "it's been established that any change in ITN/C instruction wording regarding head-of-state elections would include discouraging if not outright forbidding arguments based on "significance" of a country", this needs to be codified into the new wording, in order to protect countries such as Kiribati that may be deemed insignificant by those who live in countries with larger populations. Chrisclear (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment looks like this one is toast, oh well. In 2020 I'll nominate the electoral college appointment of a US President, which ITN will be compelled to post as the change of the head of state (US elections choose a party to nominate people to the electoral college which appoints the president) and people should sufficiently lose their shit over "bias" to finally close this ridiculous loop-hole. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. --LukeSurl t c 09:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This seems to be removing changes in heads of state of dozens of countries, including important ones like India, Pakistan, Germany, etc (as well as my own country's presidential election next month), based on the kind of false consensus one gets by not asking the Wikiprojects for the affected countries as this might violate WP:CANVAS, with various possible unfortunate consequences that I explained earlier at greater length when opposing Thryduulf's version of this proposal which can be found below. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Addition: FIFA world cup mens host city selection

No consensus. While the supports are numerically superior, I don't see a consensus - especially as much of the discussion was actually irrelevant to the topic at hand. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Similar to the olympics host city selection, this is a proposal to add the host selection for the Mens FIFA world cup. The last two were posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: If you nominate it, I will concur with its removal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Very well. It's good to have some level of consistency here when literally billions of individuals are interested in each of these topics. Sure, it's not college basketball or baseball, but it does seem to pique the interest of a few billion around the world. It's anomalous to have one without the other. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
!!!!!!COLLEGE BASKETBALL KLAXON!!!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright Mr Pointy Bollocks, enough from you. As soon as dear Howard refrains from dragging canoes into every single post, we can refrain from retaliating with the dreaded and dreadful college sport affectation. Noted? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"...literally billions"? Got a source for that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I love how casually people vote on subjects they obviously know very little about. List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts#Global Nergaal (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 Yup. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for almost all the reasons given above, and despite (or maybe partly because of) my surprize at TRM sinking to the level of quoting TV audiences in support of a proposal when he normally dismisses such things as unencyclopedic irrelevancies on a par with Kim Kardashian in the tabloids, all the more so as billions viewing the World Cup is not the same as billions being interested in the selection of the host country. (I'm not saying the billions aren't relevant (even if most of the detailed claims may be dubious commercial hype), as I agree that they are relevant - I'm just surprized that TRM thinks so too) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    No you got it all wrong. Kardashian, I was talking about pageviews, not television viewership. But do think harder before personalising issues, because next time this might go a lot further. Talking about people behind their backs is the first step on a disastrous road. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this needs independent closure. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2018 (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.

Heads of state vs government

No consensus to change the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ITNR reads "Elections and heads of state" and twice just this week (Khan and Turnbull) there is back and forth about it being/not being the "head of state". There is an easy fix for this. Instead of being locked in to the phrase "head of state", we replace it with "chef executive as listed at List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government". This way we're posting a change in the person who administers the country day to day and represents it abroad. It's that, or we post the next appointment of a Governor General of Canada who is, legally, the "Head of state" and is in one of "those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where head of state is not an elected position". We don't want that do we? Of course we don't. Lets fix this silliness. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

One, Two, Three past discussions- and I think there's more. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue for parliamentary monarchies the monarch is rather important, for parliamentary republics this is somewhat less so. Still someone might argue that it's not fair, that say the United Kingdom and most of Europe gets politics-related ITNRs, while the U.S. just gets one (unless you consider midterm elections as ITNR, which was pretty contentious the last time that happened). Howard the Duck (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I have never heard the Prime Minister of Australia described as a chief executive. Sounds ridiculously American to me. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok so fix the wording, no need to add extra snark. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as I have in the past. The selection of a new Chancellor of Germany outside of a general election is not seen as "presumed significant" where the election of the German president is. What happens in practice is the Chancellor gets posted anyway, while the presidential election is not even nom'ed. The consensus has held that this is not a big problem, because in the end we posted the relevant nom and the not the irrelevant one. I would hold this only works in the bigger countries. Are we posting the right events for Mozambique and East Timor? I have no idea. No, it's not a big problem, but it's also not a big change. ITNR has this wrong; that ITNC covers for it should not prevent us from cleaning up. ghost 11:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. 331dot's claim that a consensus was not obtained in the past does not mean a consensus cannot be obtained now, and I agree that this is a necessary change.--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
To avoid any national bias, we want the ITNR to reflect that the election to the position that holds the greatest amount of individual power in representing the country to the rest of the world should be automatic (short of quality control) while any other elected executive official should be considered case-by-case. The problem is while for most countries "head of state" does capture the former, it is not always true (eg : as I understand the situation in Pakistan, the president is the "head of state" on paper, but any serious decision is going to come from the PM) This does not make for crystal clear language of how to approach this. --Masem (t) 13:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
We post elections to rubber-stamp legislatures/bodies that just ratify the actions of the person with the actual power and/or have essentially a figurehead head of government(like, arguably, Russia/Putin), and elections where the outcome is predetermined/rigged. Unless we want to take the List of sovereign states and decide for each country on it who has the actual power, and only post changes to that, I think it will be exceedingly hard to deviate from what we do now. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't have to decide anything, List of current heads of state and government already handles it quite well, and if there is any question, the article about the office itself can help. For example President of Pakistan makes it explicitly clear The office-holder is a ceremonial de jure figurehead who represents the "unity of the Republic." --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
In Russia right now, the power follows Putin regardless of what office he technically holds, PM or President, as he just jumps from one to another. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so next time he's PM, just go ahead and update the requisite articles, and List of current heads of state and government, being sure to cite reliable sources, and we'll be all set! See, it's amazing! --LaserLegs (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
So is it "Whatever Office Vladimir Putin Holds" that is ITNR, instead of head of state elections and general elections? 331dot (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You brought up Russia. We have List of current heads of state and government which clearly delineates which office has power, and which is a meaningless figurehead. I just want to go by that. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean this as a serious question- then why not just get rid of the listing entirely and rely on ITNC to decide what changes in leadership are posted? 331dot (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I could get behind that, actually. Keep the elections (most choose who will run the country and the national assembly at the same time), drop the "head of state" bit and consider things like impeachment or resignations on a case by case basis at ITN/C. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of clarity- I was only referring to the "head of state" changes part, not elections. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that ITNR was always meant to imply "a person was elevated or reconfirmed as the most powerful in their country." As Masem noted, that's clear as mud, and the position of power does change over time - Russia is an example where we do not care and should not post the new President when Putin flips over to PM. It's a debate best handled at ITNC rather than ITNR. The benefit of having it be ITNR is that each country qualifies at least once, and we don't have a debate about the irrelevancy of Lesotho. ghost 17:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support especially per Masem, who states the rationale better than I could. Lepricavark (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I just want to comment that I'm perfectly comfortable with 331dot's rhetorical suggestion above, which is that we scrap head-of-state being ITN/R and just judge each promotion on a case-by-case basis, preferably without any bias for or against major or minor countries (e.g. we would post the head-of-state of Djibouti just as we would for Ireland, with all else being equal).--WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
We could add "head of state" to the existing explanatory sentence in some manner("changes to head of state and head of government are discussed on their own merits"). 331dot (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the principle, oppose the wording. What we want to have as ITN/R is (a) changes or re-elections of holder of the post in every country that wields day-to-day political power, whether that is President, Prime Minister or some other post; and (b) changes of (all? non-nominal?) monarch. I think the best way to do this is to split them into two listings with a note (if needed) that in the event a monarch is the person who holds the political power that they only get one listing. All we need to have is a list of which office (or offices?) we consider to be the most important for ITN purposes; and (if not all monarchies are covered) a list of which ones are. I oppose leaving to ITN/C as it will just get bogged down in arguments about whether countries like Kuwait or Georgia are important enough (let alone Swaziland and Nauru). Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This seems to be removing changes in heads of state of dozens of countries, including important ones like India, Pakistan, Germany, etc (as well as my own country's presidential election next month), based on the kind of false consensus one gets by not asking the Wikiprojects for the affected countries as this might violate WP:CANVAS, with various possible unfortunate consequences that I explained earlier at greater length when opposing Thryduulf's version of this proposal which can be found below. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2018 (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.

Heads of state and government (Thryduulf's proposal)

No consensus to make any kind of change. This died on the vine a few months ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following on from the above discussion, I think there is consensus on what we want to see but now how to express that. Accordingly I propose this to see if it is better than what has gone before. It would replace all existing ITN/R entries about heads of state and government. Exact wording will need tweaking, this is to get agreement on the broad concepts.

ITN/R:

  • Monarchs and popes:
    • The death or abdication of a reigning monarch or pope
    • Succession of a new monarch or regent following the death of the previous incumbent. This should normally be combined with the death blurb above if it happens before that is stale.
    • Election of a new pope. If the death blurb is not stale, combining the blurbs should be determined by consensus.
  • Countries with elected heads of state or government:
    • Results of general elections to a parliament, if the governing party does or could change as a result of the election.
    • Change of head of state in countries where the head of state exercises day-to-day political power.
    • Change of head of government in countries where the head of government exercises day-to-day political power.
  • In all cases:
    • All criteria apply equally to all UN member states plus Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Vatican City.
    • If voting takes place over multiple rounds only the final round is ITN/R.
    • In the case of indirect elections (e.g. US presidential elections), only the results of (the final round of) the popular vote are ITN/R.
    • Where any change of elected head or state or government that is ITN/R happens at the same time as another election that is also ITN/R then the blurbs should normally be combined.
    • If an election is inconclusive, this should be posted when the article is ready and then updated when the outcome is clear. If the outcome is not clarified until after the results of voting are stale, consensus at ITN/C should determine whether a second post is made.

ITN/C only:

  • States that are not members of the UN (except Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Vatican City)
  • Sub-national entities
  • Deaths of monarchs who abdicated, were deposed, or were only pretenders to the throne.
  • Deaths of popes emeritus
  • A substantive monarch taking over from regents
  • Changes to a monarch's representative to a country (e.g. Governor General and similar)
  • Changes of head of state in countries where the head of government exercises day-to-day political power (excluding changes of monarch that are listed as ITN/R above).
  • Changes of head of government in countries where the head of state exercises day-to-day political power.

Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The Vatican is a city-state, but is it worth noting that other changes in spiritual leadership of religions (perhaps Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, President of the Church (LDS Church), Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, etc.) are ITN/C only? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think they can be reasonably construed as any of (a) monarch, (b) head of state or (c) head of government, let alone of a UN member state. So I think mentioning them will likely lead to more confusion, especially if there are (now or in future) any other ITN/R entries for religious leaders. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support almost anything that puts the status-quo to death. You've got a lot of new verbiage about monarchs, the vast majority today are figureheads, and I think they should be considered individually at ITN/C (except in cases where they are the head of state exercising day-to-day political power then that's covered). There aren't so many left, they don't die or resign too often, so I'm not opposed, but I'd be happier of monarchs weren't ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC) not
    • Oppose when I read this, I hadn't considered that it leads to every nom bickering over "who is really in charge". I'm tired of the Putin argument. Puppet Medvedev exercises day-to-day authority, even if it's under Putins direction, and that's good enough for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Your never going to get consensus on anything if everyone is contributing their own tweaks. ghost 17:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some questions: Why do Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, and the Vatican get added in addition to UN members? For that matter, why UN members and not the List of sovereign states that we use now? What about Russia, where Putin is in charge regardless of his title/position? I'm not sure we need the portion that is essentially a "not ITNR" list.
That said, it seems that we have two disparate pathways to take here; either remove the listing totally(one earlier proposal), or be more specific(this proposal). If we're going to keep the listing, which might be the case since there wasn't a huge consensus there, then I would support changing it to this. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
"Why do Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, and the Vatican get added in addition to UN members? For that matter, why UN members and not the List of sovereign states that we use now?" UN Members plus those 4 is basically the simplest way of saying every country that functions as a sovereign state and has widespread international recognition as an independent sovereign state, but if you want to include the whole list of sovereign states then I won't object.
"What about Russia, where Putin is in charge regardless of his title/position?" This proposal aims to cope with that - when Putin is head of state then head of state qualifies, when he is head of government then head of government gets the ITN/R. It's about de facto not de jure power. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Leaving aside whether Putin is President or PM, how would this apply in important countries like China and France, where both President and PM have some power (tho president is usually seen as more powerful, but PM seemingly has very real power in France during so-called 'cohabitation' periods)? In the case of China (and perhaps countries like South Africa) the real news may be when somebody becomes party leader, which may be quite some time before they officially become President. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar enough with the political systems in each country, but if only one of PM and President wields day-to-day political power then only that one is ITN/R. If both wield power day-to-day power equally then both are ITN/R, but that seems unlikely. Someone becoming party leader is not relevant to this proposal at all, if you think it should be INTR (generally or in specific cases) then you need to make a separate proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: a) Am I correct in my understanding that this proposal will take next month's Irish Presidential election out of ITN/R? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes (assuming the proposal gains consensus before then), as political power in Ireland is in the hands of the taoiseach. You (or anyone else) would be free to nominate it at WP:ITN/C as a normal nomination though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Which I suspect would make its chances of getting posted change from over 90% to under 10%,but I guess that's life and similar problems will apply to other posts such as the President of India.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you really think the President of Ireland SHOULD be posted to ITN? ghost 12:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: b) Assuming the answer to (a) above is YES, am I correct in thinking that it would be a violation of WP:CANVAS to mention this at the Talk page of the relevant article, or at any other Irish Talk Page? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    Incidentally, tho I'm Irish, I'm actually rather neutral about what happens to that article, basically on what I would dubiously describe as 'quality' grounds (meaning that, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I've quit working on the article, perhaps mainly because I disagree with the removal of 'last election' figures from that article, resulting in alphabetic ordering of the candidates in the infobox, which now seems to me to be almost a disinfo box, and I'm not too happy with how that came about). It does however mean that I'm currently a bit reluctant to support or oppose the present proposal, as I'm not sure I'd be supporting or opposing for sensible reasons. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) That depends entirely on how it was mentioned and why, where it was mentioned and in how many places might also make a difference. A neutral message at talk:Irish presidential election, 2018 that noted that the proposal is to change which changes of head of state and head of government are automatically considered significant to post at ITN every time they happen, and this would (i.e. it's not about Ireland specifically) would be OK, similarly on the talk page of any other articles about elections that would be affected by this proposal (either way). Leaving a message on every Irish talk page would definitely be inappropriate, as would a non-neutral message - framing it as something specifically about Ireland might be inappropriate. Possibly a neutral note at the elections wikiproject talk page would be better though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your three helpful replies, Thryduulf. I'll have a think about whether and where I want to leave such a neutral note, tho a neutral note from you or anybody else at Wikiproject Elections seems best (otherwise I might have to explain why I only left such a note at just one country's Talk page, or at 20 countries' Talk Pages instead of 200). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I've now added this to the Elections and referendums Project Talk Page.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Among other problems, we will seemingly in effect be saying that the Grand Duke of Luxemburg (population 300,000) is still ITNR, but the President of India (population 1.2 billion) no longer is, and there will be many other similar examples. This is potentially rather damaging to Wikipedia's reputation in places like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and many other countries (including my own, Ireland) and may tend to somewhat demoralize editors and thus somewhat damage editor productivity and editor retention from such countries, as well as possibly attracting disruptive POV-pushing editors from such countries intent on teaching us 'wicked imperialists' a lesson. Any 'consensus' in favour of this proposal seems likely to be a false consensus achieved by failing to warn such countries of what is in store for them, as any such warning is liable to be seen (possibly technically correctly) as violating WP:CANVAS. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I think you've completely misunderstood the aim of the proposals (not just mine) which is to reflect the meaningful changes in each country equally. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't know how you can conclude that, as I don't think I have said anything about the aim of this or any other proposal. My opposition is based on my perception of this proposal's actual and possible consequences, not on its aim. (As for the other proposals, I haven't looked at them, as I have tended to assume, perhaps mistakenly, that this proposal will replace them). That said, if the proposal's aim is to reflect meaningful changes in countries equally, then this proposal would seem to fail in its aim, as for instance exemplified by its above-mentioned treatment of Luxemburg and India. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Your example shows what we are trying to avoid. The president of India (like Ireland) is a lesser role. By making the primary role the ITNR qualified, we leave the lesser role to prove itself at ITNC. Luxembourg is a wholly different case. Note that the seat has changed hands just twice since the 19th century, so it seems rare enough to take note. ghost 12:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually my main objection is that 'we' (seemingly almost entirely consisting of editors from unaffected countries) are removing the heads of states of dozens of countries from ITNR without letting them know or asking them how they feel about it (for fear that doing so would violate WP:CANVAS), and that any apparent consensus on the issue will thus be a false and potentially harmful pseudo-consensus. (The fact that in this particular proposal we are doing this to republics but not monarchies just adds insult to injury, but isn't the most important problem).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You are missing the point that we're not simply removing heads of state, what we are doing is saying that changes of figurehead heads of state are not automatically notable enough for ITN but changes of powerful heads of government are automatically notable enough (which they currently are not). Under this proposal no country will get fewer entries on ITN/R than they do now, we're just changing which ones they are to match the real-world significance. The president of Ireland is not a politically powerful position, the taishoch is. Currently the president is INT/R but the taishoch isn't - this proposal will reverse that.
The difference with monarchies (where the monarch does not exercise day-to-day political power) is that they change very infrequently relative to elected heads of state - there have been 18 changes of president in 2018, the 18th shortest reigning monarch has ruled since 1999 (longer than Wikipedia has existed). This means that changes of monarch are much more significant to the country than changes of president. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I am NOT missing the point. I am well aware of what you are trying to achieve. But you (and not only you) seem to be somehow repeatedly missing the point that this is liable to cause collateral damage because of the lack of consultation with those affected, thus also violating at least the spirit (if perhaps not the letter) of WP:CONSENSUS, despite the fact that I have now said something like this perhaps half a dozen times in my comments on the 3 different proposals currently here. The fact that republics will retain the same number of ITNRs (but monarchies will gain them under this proposal) is not really the point. The point is that those liable to be affected have not been consulted (thanks largely to fears of been accused of violating WP:CANVAS). For instance if I were Indian I would expect this change would in practice make a lot more unnecessary hassle for Indian editors because, for instance, I would know that changes of the Indian PM are a great deal less likely to be opposed at ITNR than changes of the Indian President, and I would likely be outraged that a bunch of Westerners had imposed this extra hassle on Indian editors without consulting them, based on yet another pseudo-consensus achieved by not consulting all those likely to be affected (note: this is not the first time that this kind of thing has happened, as I know it happened when an ENGVAR proposal got passed in that way a few years back, before getting reversed after the unsurprizing resulting furious row, tho this didn't prevent a recent time-wasting attempt to repeat the highly disruptive farce almost succeeding; quite likely there are many other such examples of which I am unaware). And of course this doesn't just apply to India, it applies to dozens of other countries (including my own, tho I have no way of knowing whether Irish editors would on balance mostly support or oppose the change if consulted, and I can't know this precisely because they have not been consulted, as I am getting very tired of having to repeatedly point out).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile, as I have mentioned the potential collateral damage and wasted effort liable to be caused if this already time-consuming proposal is passed, may I remind you of 331dot's excellent point above in the first of these discussions: "Discussion on this question has happened many times in the past, and never gained consensus. ... One, Two, Three past discussions- and I think there's more." Tlhslobus (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This proposal does not bar the President of India or India itself from ITN; it only says that office is not presumed notable, but the Indian PM is presumed notable. President can still go through ITNC. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
True, but as already pointed out, in practice this will probably create more work for Indian and similar editors, thanks to a potentially disruptive pseudo-consensus achieved by not consulting those likely to be affected. That said, I've wasted enough time on this already, and apart from the brief comment below, I will now be withdrawing from this discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Besides the other objections I've mentioned above, this proposal should in practice reduce the number of postings about important countries like India, Germany, Italy, etc, and increase the number of ITN arguments on the matter (because their PMs get posted anyway, while we will now get rows over their Presidents, and sometimes over where day-to-day power resides), while also increasing some irrelevant ITN postings (such as ministates whose rarely-changing head of state is the Queen of England or the Archduke of Ruritania but whose often-changing PMs now become ITNR). Personally I think this also disimproves Wikipedia (and may well have been part of the very sensible reason for the existing system). But I've wasted enough time on this already, so I will now be withdrawing from this discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The only person objecting "What about Putin" is 331dot and I don't think that's valid. I don't care if the Russian president is a puppet when Putin is the PM, the president runs the country day to day even if it's as a puppet. For the 100th time, we have List of current heads of state and government which has a clear delineation. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The goal of this proposal in part is to post whichever office actually has power. If Medvedev is just doing Putin's bidding(for example), Medvedev is not the person who actually has power. Thryduulf addressed my concern. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: The principal goal of this proposal is to post whichever office actu§ally has power. It does not attempt to define which office that is for any country. List of current heads of state and government is therefore complementary to this proposal, being a place where the powerful office for each country is defined. The other part of this proposal relates to defining for which countries changes in head of state or government are ITN/R, the list of current heads of state and government is not organised in a way that matches ITN's goals in this regards (nor should it be). The only person (possibly other than you?) actually objecting to this proposal currently is Tlhslobus, who is doing so for reasons that are partly irrelevant and partly contrary to what there is a clear consensus for (posting the position of power; it is only the proposed methods that haven't gained consensus) Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2018 (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.

Removal: Emmy

No consensus to change the status quo, Emmy stays at INTR. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following from this last nom, there were both opposes on the outright lack of update (a severe issue in the first place), and that the Emmys are not that relevant anymore. For that reason, I'm just throwing it out there if this should be a removal.

As a bit of history, here's the fate of past Emmy noms:

  • 2013: [3] Not posted: Article never appeared to got updates in terms of prose, in addition to questions of how Emmys got on ITNR
  • 2014: [Posted_66th_Primetime_Emmy_Awards] Posted (but note how few !votes): Here's the apparent state of the article at the time [4] which does have prose.
  • 2015: [Closed_67th_Primetime_Emmy_Awards] Not posted: again lack of update (in terms of prose)
  • 2016: [5] Not posted, again due to lack of prose
  • 2017: [Posted_Emmys] Posted, here's the state [6], which doesn't seem like a lot of prose.

I will argue that there is an issue with what is expected of an update here, that the two that were posted really aren't sufficient (compared to what we ask for sports events and usual get). If we aren't getting the updates from those interested, then this shouldn't be an ITNR.

I do argue strongly against pulling the ITNR simply due to the relevance of the Emmys, they have at least expanded to acknowledge alternate distribution methods like streaming (it took a while for them to get cable too). They remain the principle award in the television format area (even if broadcast television is sorta dead). But I will acknowledge the fact we do the Emmys and not the BAFTAs is systematic bias. If we do one, we should do both. So consider this partially a recommend to add the BAFTA TV awards if we keep the Emmys.

But again, if we're not getting quality updates over the last several years, then I agree with its removal from ITNR. --Masem (t) 02:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - My stance on this has been known for a while now, but for the record, I agree with Masem's reasoning regarding prose updates. I do believe it's questionable to include the Emmys on ITNR when we do not include the BAFTAs.--WaltCip (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question is there anywhere where the standards required for prose updates are written down? This year's article has prose, and I can easily see why some might think it sufficient although I can also see why others would think otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This year's, 70th Primetime Emmy Awards, has no prose. As an example 89th Academy Awards (pre and post-ceremony) has what I would argue should be essential prose for any of these awards. There are parts of the 89th that I know we'd not be able to fill in before ITN posting like Ratings, but everything else was doable within 24hr of the show's conclusion. There might not be as many events during a usual Emmy broadcast but it is certainly appropriate to discuss the balloting timelines, etc. and major events during the show (eg there was a marriage proposal in this year's Emmys that was talked about). --Masem (t) 12:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree with removing items from ITN/R solely because of lack of updates - we don't add things to it just because they get good updates (almost) every time they happen (e.g. college basketball). I don't have an opinion about the signficance of the Emmys though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Do we need to ping and/or notify all those who took part in previous such discussions in recent years? WaltCip's comments at the nom implies that he (incidentally is it now unCIVIL and/or unacceptable systemic BIAS to assume that a "Walt" is a "he"?) has unsuccessfully nominated the Emmys, and/or the Grammys, and/or "their ilk", for removal from ITNR for each of the past 3 years. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Masem's statement at the start of this item that it's systemic BIAS to have the Emmys but not the BAFTAs, but I strongly disagree that this means we should have both or neither. This is yet another example of what's wrong with much of WP:BIAS, and why we should be vigilant to try to ensure that that essay never becomes a guideline or policy (or at least not in its current formulation). For instance it's also 'systemic bias' that the entertainment awards of perhaps 50 to 200 other countries aren't also included. To accept that "Emmys requires Baftas" is also BIAS, anti-American bias in the sense that it says one Briton is the equal of about 5 Americans (there are about 65 million Britons, and about 325 million Americans/USAans), and anti-rest-of-the-world bias in the sense that it says only Britons should be allowed this strange and unusual privilege.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I would argue that in general that BAFTAs (Television or other areas) are generally more prestigious and less about wooing the voter pool, even though they consider a smaller set of TV works; its not about disproportion between population. The reason that we do things like Oscars and Tonys and BAFTAs is that programming and other art forms produced by US and UK have wide international reach, compared to what other countries produce (eg: Japan produces a lot of works, but very little gets to the West, and while Bollywood may produce a lot more compared to Hollywood, that also doesn't get much Western release); it's not so much favoring the awards of these countries, but putting emphasis on the awards of the countries whose art has a large international emphasis. --Masem (t) 12:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Anybody can argue anything. It could be argued that your argument is itself suffused with systemic bias, for instance when you say things like "that also doesn't get much Western release" - even supposing the claim to be true and objective (for instance, what does 'much' mean?), what's so important about Western release? Indeed it could be argued that all arguments related to things like culture and history are inevitably suffused with systemic bias. Also I find British terrestrial TV (especially Film4, but also channels like BBC2, BBC4, and perhaps a few others) show lots of Bollywood and Japanese stuff. And I suspect that it is almost impossible to objectively check claims about the the relative importance of things like the Baftas and Bollywood due to the systemic bias and commercial hype inherent in all such claims, tho both personal experience and common sense tell me that around here British claims are usually given far more weight than they at least seem to deserve (for instance in rowing The Boat Races are ITNR, but the World Rowing Championships are not), while Indian and other such claims often tend to be given far less weight than they seem to deserve.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
      • However, measured by what interests our readers, based on comparing the two top level articles, in the last 365 days, from 22 September 2017 to 21 September 2018, Emmys got 647,782 pageviews, and BAFTA got 165,014 pageviews, suggesting the Emmys are about 4 times more interesting to our readers than the Baftas. Maybe a more detailed comparison of all the related articles might alter this ratio a bit (tho I suspect not all that much either way). But, at least in the current absence of evidence to the contrary, it does NOT seem obvious, at least to me, that having the Emmys in ITNR but not the Baftas is some sort of great sin against human equality (or whatever other alleged wickedness WP:BIAS is supposed to be guarding us against).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
And incidentally, the above relatively disappointing BAFTA pageview figures unduly flatter the BAFTAS, as the Emmys are just TV, while the Baftas are TV plus film plus videogames, and should thus actually be compared to Emmys+Oscars+Whatever-US-Video-Games-Awards-are-called.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
There are separate ceremonies for the BAFTAS, eg British Academy Television Awards, British Academy Film Awards, British Academy Games Awards which are not held at the same time or chosen by the same people. --Masem (t) 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Masem. So it seems the relevant comparison of Emmys is thus to British Academy Television Awards, which got 72,756 pageviews during the same period, seemingly now making the Emmys about 9 times (instead of just 4 times) more interesting to our readers than the corresponding Bafta, thus further strengthening my case.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
And, incidentally, despite Britain and France being next-door neighbours, the French Wikipedia ratio for the same 365 days is almost twice as bad for the TV Bafta (1,807 pageviews) at over 17 to 1 in favour of the Emmys (33,748 pageviews).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Quite likely what this really shows is that we really need different national and/or regional front pages for English Wikipedia, but that's presumably an argument for another forum.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Do keep in mind that WP does not consider popularity or page count in whether something is ITN or not. I would suspect some of the more academic awards on ITN hav pages views in pale comparison to world cup or sports events, but we still feature them. --Masem (t) 21:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, let's not forget the good old Kim Kardashian paradigm. We have WP:TOP25 for that kind of junk. Pageviews are almost entirely irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Here I'm trying to compare like with like, which seems relevant to me after a claim has been made that Emmys should be removed as their inclusion is 'systematic bias' because the allegedly 'prestigious' Baftas are not included (especially given that anybody can claim that any prize is 'prestigious', etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
But it's funny how billions of TV viewers suddenly (and, incidentally, rightly, at least in my view) stop being unencyclopedic Kim Kardashian tabloid irrelevancies when TRM is supporting making the selection of the FIFA World Cup host ITNR. As he so rightly pointed out at the time "It's good to have some level of consistency here". Tlhslobus (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
However I think I'd maybe better try to quit this part of the discussion before somebody says something here that might irritate me into irrationally switching from my current neutral position to an outright oppose. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the appropriate response is !!!!!ROWING FLAXON!!!! (or something like that) The Emmys, the most famous TV awards on Earth won't have an easier time of being added to ITN, as compared to say the most famous sport in the world... rowing. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Nearly Howard, nearly!! Better luck next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Tlhslobus, do you think anyone is worried that you'll get "irritated" and switch to "oppose"? The Emmys rarely get posted because no-one gives a damn about them enough to fix the articles up, so whether they're ITNR or not is pretty much irrelevant, much like most of this section. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think at least one person is worried, namely me - I guess I'm just one of those weird people who doesn't enjoy being irritated, and probably enjoys it even less when he sees himself as having behaved irrationally as a result - the fact that I also often behave irrationally for other reasons is a bit beside the point Tlhslobus (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so you're voicing a kind of internal dialogue to us? I get it. I think too much effort has already been expended here, whether Emmys stay on the INTR list or not is irrelevant until people can be bothered to update the articles correctly. And when trying to compare this to a competition which takes place every four years, watched globally, by billions, one simply must try harder. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
No internal dialogue, I was just answering the question you asked me. But at least it's good to know that we seem to agree that too much effort has already been expended here, so I needn't waste any more time disputing the rest of what you've just said Tlhslobus (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Would it be unwise and/or premature to move most/all existing and/or future comments/questions to a new Discussion subsection, along with an initial subsection neatly reserved for Supports and Opposes? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Removal the Emmys have been running for 70 years now, the US produces by far the most English-language television (this is the en-wiki after all) so the awards are relevant. As you see from above, they're posted when the update is sound. As for "bias", the word doesn't appear once in WP:ITN so until you amend the guidelines to make "bias" a criteria for ITN, that consideration means precisely nothing. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The horse and carriage have been around for a long time too, but technologically speaking, that does not make it relevant, even if it's still being used. Similarly, longevity does not equate to notability.--WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, not only is Laserlegs right that 'bias' is not in the ITN criteria, it (or at least WP:BIAS) is just an essay, and is NOT a Wikipedia policy or guideline (and thankfully so, at least as it's currently formulated).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Currently neutral I'm just mentioning this because my above comments might get me counted as an oppose, whereas I've only been criticizing the "we don't have Baftas so we shouldn't have Emmys" BIAS argument, and I'd actually like to hear more views on other issues before making up my mind.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR is not meant not meant to supplant reasonable discussion on a subject's significance, but to declare it a fait accompli. It reasonably follows that any nom for removal that garners...lets say 40% support, should be seen as proof that such significance is NOT to be assumed. I've said it before and I'll say it again: requiring consensus to add AND remove items from ITNR creates a donut-hole where anything with 30-70% support can be neither added nor removed. An item that could not survive a significance debate at ITNC should not be on ITNR.ghost 11:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Enough already.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • You're supporting a policy around the "amount of consensus" needed to keep/remove an item on ITN/R or removal of the Emmys? If the latter, I see no rationale for your position, if the former, this is perhaps the wrong thread. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm supporting the removal of Emmys from ITNR - irrelevant as nom'ed. I've literally never heard a human IRL mention the Emmy's since they started letting HBO play in the sandbox. The BAFTAs get more play, and I'm in Ohio....I'm separately pointing out that it doesn't appear this nomination is going anywhere, and isn't that sad because it seems because it clearly would never make MP without ITNR. ghost 17:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm in Georgia (U.S. State), the only reason I know BAFTA is a thing is because POV warriors fighting "bias" cram it down our throats at ITN every year. If you want to start a separate discussion around the criteria for consensus at WT:ITNR (or better yet, is ITNR still valuable) then I'm all for it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I think "I'm in Georgia" followed by a version of "I've never heard of that thing" is pretty much de facto standard I'm afraid for most globally notable things in that neck of the woods. A little context. There's a world outside the United States, and includes things like BAFTA which have a great deal more respect than this Emmy bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
            • Hey, you're right, I am a Canadian citizen, married to an Indonesian, who currently lives in Atlanta after a 7 year stint in Miami, thanks for pointing that out! --LaserLegs (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
              • No, I'm not the one pointing things out here, you've been warned countless times, perhaps this is the end? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                • You inserted yourself into the discussion TRM, with derogatory remarks about my current place of residence, knowing precisely nothing about me. If my reply is some kind of violation, take it on over to WP:ANI, we're both acquainted. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                  • Heh, funny one. There was a referenced note about the fact that most Americans haven't travelled outside America, that your claim to not have really heard of BAFTA in Georgia was purely a symptom of that, correct. I wonder how many Georgians hang out for BAFTAs?! You're hilarious, and thanks again for the LOLs, but do remember that you're on a short leash, and continuing to make POINTY bollock edits will result in you failing to be able to edit here ever again. Not my words! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                    • Right, but I'm not American. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                      • Could you show me the diff where I said that you were an American? Jeez, this never ends. Move on, improve some articles, I don't know, go spend some time with your Indonesian wife in Atlanta, whatever. I'm not interested in your personal life at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                        • All you have to do is not comment on me as in individual TRM, should be easy. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                          • I didn't. I commented on people living in Georgia and used a reliable source to back up the fact that those living in America are poorly travelled. I'm afraid you're wrong, once again. I did comment on your usual pointy bollocks which has seen you at ANI, but otherwise, it was all about you telling me about how diverse you and your life is. Once again, I couldn't give a shit. Why should I? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment While I am still on board for removal for routine lack of updates, I will stand on the notion that part of ITNR function is to help smooth out some media/coverage biases in certain areas. eg: we treat that boating/racing is just as significant a sport as assc. football or gridiron football, so we feature its top event. In terms of entertainment art forms, television still remains a very significant form as compared to film, music, and theaters. And in terms of awards, the top award is clearly the Emmys, with the BAFTA TVs in nearness. (I would extend this argument that video games are now a significant entertainment form, but we lack a clear top award in the area to include at ITNR at this point; there's no single authorative source as Emmys are to TV, or Oscars are to film). So we should cover a top recognition in television, but only if we have articles that are routinely placed in good shape for that coverage. --Masem (t) 19:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    All very interesting, but the principle here is that Emmys do not equate to "top recognition", they equate to showbiz backscratching and backslapping. Hence the lack of interest, the lack of coverage, the lack of update, the lack of meaning. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    Which could apply to all awards in the entertainment industry, which of course is not what is proposed; this would similarly be attributable to things like the Man Booker Prize or the Abel Prize, which are even more "navel-gazing" within that field but with little attention outside it - but again, that is in no way what I'm suggesting. We also have to recognize that maybe outside the television industry the Emmys have lost attention, but within the industry they are still critically important. (The fact more and more shows on streaming networks have won top awards shows the direction that traditional television is changing, for example, but it doesn't change the importance of the Emmys). Now, I will agree the lack of interest outside the industry leads to the lack of routine updates on WP, but this removal suggestion is based on that result, not the symptom. --Masem (t) 19:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    Again, more (lots of) interesting words, but the Emmys aren't important, and the abject failure for them to be updated properly year in, year out, is manifestly emblematic of that. It's game over for Emmy, they're unimpressive, not worth the trophy they sit on, and should be fallen back to ITNC where we can properly assess it every year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal, really not impressed by any keep argument, as ITNC will enable us to debate this showbiz parade every time, and may (who knows?) help with the appalling article quality we've seen in recent years. Junk articles don't deserve to get a free pass, and topics which have run out of steam need to be debated more frequently, hence ITNC is the best place for this mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • You're right, the wall of tables that makes up a Premiere League season is junk, and purely "showbiz". Thanks for pointing that out! --LaserLegs (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Not sure where I mentioned the Premier League, could you provide a diff? I think you're pointed edits have reached the limit. I suspect it's not long before you can't do that any more ever again here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Actually came to retract that statement, a bit too late. My point is that we post so much sports entertainment, and so little performing arts entertainment, I don't see what it helps booting the Emmys from ITNR, given the dominance of the USA in English language television. Add the BAFTA if you want, add the Canadian and Australian equivalents, I don't care, its just silly to me the ratio of sports entertainment to all other entertainment. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral I would have been happy to support, but not now that this has unnecessarily become a BIAS issue. Would it be possible to conduct these conversations without the grandstanding and soapboxing? Lepricavark (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal If the articles are not being updated, then we won't post them. That's not a reason to remove it from ITN/R. Also, support including BAFTA, seems obvious from the above that BAFTA is as significant (having not followed either events myself). Davey2116 (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Support removal They should be discussed and decided on their own merit. We shouldn't be posting poor collection of tables in the name of ITNR. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ammarpad: We don't. Articles that are just a poor collection of tables are not posted to ITN, regardless of whether the subject is ITN/R or not. The question is, are the Emmy's significant enough to post every year there is a good enough article written, without needing to discuss the merits of the event? If the answer is "yes" then it should be on ITN/R, if the answer is no then it shouldn't be. Whether a good enough article is written is not relevant to the event's significance. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Although not officially recognized as such, I'd suggest that one of the factors of an article that goes a great deal into determining its significance is how frequently and how well it is updated upon its occurrence. For comparison, other ITN/R events that usually get updated in a timely manner include the Super Bowl, the Boat Race, the various Nobel prizes, and the FIFA World Cup. The fact that the Emmy's and the Grammy's repeatedly seem to not get posted to the main page because no one can be bothered to update the article with a decent bit of prose leads one to question whether it is even significant enough to warrant ITN/R.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Exactly. And we know we have a similar topic area, the Oscars, that are routinely updated in a quality manner to be more than just a list of tables, so we have some type of standard for what these televised awards should be. If editors cannot be moved to improve on the article in a timely manner repeated, it is a waste of time to have it in ITNR. They can be considered as ITNC still if removed. --Masem (t) 14:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Nah, if the article isn't updated, it isn't posted, simple as that. No "waste of time" there. This is about as WP:IDONTLIKEIT as they come, either because it's "US-centric" or because it's entertainment I don't know. If you want to complain about topics no one cares about, the 2018 Mann Booker International Prize was posted after 5 days and a BARELY passable update, and the International Dublin Literary award wasn't even nominated. What? Books are "more significant" than television? Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose if someone does update the article, it shouldn't be kept off ITN because of notability. The various tennis majors (which have recently not been posted due to quality issues) are similar. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal In my view this is still a significant event and shouldn't be removed just because of lack of updates in some previous years.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_23&oldid=1137416675"