Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Allowing consensus to change

Posting here a new section to elaborate on my thoughts that this page is somewhat in conflict with Wikipedia:Consensus can change. My basic contention is that it is current and active consensus that matters on Wikipedia, and that should always over-ride an older consensus (especially one that may be years old). The problem here is that some items are on this list due to discussions that are years old. What I think is needed is a way to identify which items are actually being posted at ITN, and to identify the items only on this list due to consensus from years ago, and to then discuss those that aren't being posted and/or are only there due to an old consensus. And to then mark each item with a link to the most recent discussion on the topic. It might be easier to have an annual discussion of everything on the list (with new suggestions for additions), and to then mark the list as having gained a more recent consensus. This would be preferable to using a list with items that in some cases seem to have been added with only a few people commenting. So is the idea of an annual refreshing of the list a good one? Carcharoth (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd do a quarter of the items every 3 months, but the general idea is sound. I'd suggest listing a quarter and any people object to can be subject to further discussion - there's no point in re-discussing the Olympics in depth. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
not necessary to keep reiterating discussion for the sake of it. CCC means if challenged consensus can be reworked, doesnt mean it HAS to automatically be up for discussion. You know how many discussion that would lead to every few months?
As it stands people are entitled to challenge and discussion os then garnered just as it says on the ITNS page and netball discussion above.(Lihaas (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)).
Perhaps it would be best to treat the list as automatically discussed items, rather than a list of automatically posted items. Just because the community agreed to post an article a decade ago does not mean it should skip consensus in the present. International attention and importance changes. We have more than enough contributors to discuss ITN candidates equally as they occur. Mamyles (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
We need to think about the significance of the fact that Netball got a lot of pretty aggressive Opposes at ITN/C, and seemingly a majority of Keeps here. I don't quite understand why that happened. Was it an immediacy and knee jerk reaction at ITN/C and a more long term, global view here? Whatever, we seem to have two different forums. Replacing discussion at one with discussion at the other is not obvious to me as the solution. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's because ITN/R gets a lot more of the "regulars" here, which might put it out of touch with broader community desires. I wouldn't mind changing ITN/R to be "we are going to post this immediately if the article is already updated, but if we start to get opposes while the article is not, it has to gain consensus like any other item". NW (Talk) 10:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The issue with opposes is that they don't necessarily have a strong point about a nomination. Providing more ground for people to make baseless opposition is highly damaging to the section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's give the netball conversation more than a day (like, a week maybe) before make make a broad judgement on the significance of any difference in consensus on ITN/C and ITNR. That said, it's inevitable that ITN/C will get more eyes than the talk page of ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Super Rugby

This year's Super Rugby title failed to get updated and wasn't posted. Last year's championship wasn't even nominated. Does it need to stay on ITNR?--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Difficult one. My feeling is that if there were updates, it should go up. It's clearly the premier club rugby event in the southern hemisphere, on a par with the northern Heineken Cup. It attracts a lot of media attention in the three nations. But the lack of on-wiki interest in any of the related articles is a major concern. If something is on ITNR but doesn't get updated, we've missed an opportunity but otherwise haven't lost anything. However, I entirely understand why its suitability is being questioned. Modest Genius talk 21:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Well one thing I think we learned from the recent netball controversy is that it's worth reviewing items on ITNR now and then.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The H-Cup is not even nominated regularly. For some reason, it's only nominated if an Irish team makes it to the final. If I'm not mistaken, when 2 French teams met in the final nobody even bothered to nominate. –HTD 04:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Page view stats for July 2011, June 2011. Around 1.4k views per game day, w/ a peak of 2.2k views. –HTD 06:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should remove both the club competitions then. Seems a shame, because in principle I think they should be on there. In practise, they're well short of the required on-wiki interest (mostly from editors, since if there were half-decent articles I imagine there would be more readers). Modest Genius talk 13:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm OK with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: CONCACAF Gold Cup (Association football competition determining the regional champion of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean.)

All of the confederation championships of the "major" confederations (sorry OFC) are included except CONCACAF's. I see the Gold Cup as on par with the Asian Cup but below the Euros, Copa America, and African Cup of nations. However, it is still the confederation championship of 40 nations. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 13:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say "nobody cares" but page view stats say otherwise. –HTD 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Support per viewership figures. People care. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting page view stats for the 2009 tournaments: It seemed that the just-concluded tournament had a ton more "interest" than the previous one. Now compare it to the 2011 AFC Asian Cup -- quite as much page views as the last Gold Cup, but less. 2011 2011 Copa America had more views than the Gold Cup, while Euro 2008 is in between the last Gold Cup and Copa America (England not qualifying has something to do with it). This of course pales into comparison with the FIFA World Cup which had ~250k views/match day. –HTD 16:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Support. We post the other continental championships. The 2011 final had an attendance of 93,000. I myself attended the 2009 final in a packed Giants Stadium.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There's three 'supports' here and no opposition; I think this can be added. HTD, since you haven't !voted, perhaps you could do the honors if you're not opposed?--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I say wait for the next tournament and evaluate if the page view stats are retained/improved from this year's tourney. –HTD 06:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I just added a Wikilink and some more information to the heading to give people an inkling of what this is about. It may make comment by more editors more likely. It seems justifiable to me. So Support. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Women's Golf

I think we ought to include on the women's ITNR on here the four major championships Kraft Nabisco Championship, LPGA Championship, U.S. Women's Open, and Women's British Open. On the subject of international competition, we need to include the Solheim Cup. What do you all think of being more inclusive?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Id support LPGA for sure, but not sure about the others.Lihaas (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

UK Poet Laureate

I've removed this. The rationale for adding it was poor. It was added back in 2009 upon a discussion (word search "and Scottish") that focused on her being the first gay, first woman, and first Scottish poet laureate of the UK. The next UK PL may not break any new ground, so that's hardly a rationale for making something a recurring item.--Chaser2 (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And I have reverted that. The BBC reference was not the rationale for adding it. The discussion mentioned (prominently) but did not focus on her being the first gay, first woman and first Scottish appointee
A, partial, list of previous holders of the post was included to show the significance. Two of the supporters are non-UK based and reference in French media was noted to show the international significance.
Also this post will not come vacant for many years so there is no urgency in making a change if one is necessary. FerdinandFrog (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Replacement of "Space Exploration" criteria

The current criteria list "The launch of satellites, shuttles, and any space mission in general." as being ITNR. Under that criteria, we would have about 70 items per year. I would therefore like to propose that this is changed to:

  • The launch of manned spaceflights
  • The first and last launches of any type of rocket
  • Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article
  • A country conducting its first successful indigenous orbital launch
  • The launch of space stations or major components thereof

This should bring it more in line with the de facto inclusion of spaceflights. The criteria should also be renamed "spaceflight", as "space exploration" has misleading implications and not all spacecraft launched are engaged in exploration. Missions not included in the criteria can always be nominated through the usual procedure. --GW… 08:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed several times (here and here) and tends to fizzle out without anything being done. I currently think the best criteria would be:

The launch of the following forms of space flight:

  1. ^ excluding sub-orbital sounding rockets, airborne observatories etc.
  2. ^ here 'maiden space flight' refers to the first successful space flight whilst carrying a non-test payload
Note these are slightly different to the criteria I suggested a year ago. Everything else e.g. launch failures, other types of satellites etc. should be left to ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 16:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Id' ssupport as inhrenetly notable for its rarity (although the first is quite commong):
  • The launch of manned spaceflights (maybe)
  • The first and last launches of any type of rocket
  • Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article
  • A country conducting its first successful indigenous orbital launch
  • Colloborative projects (india/israel come to mined) excl. usa/russia and with the eu as ONE entity. These are rarer and as nascent projects more notable as they dont have the capacity of the already experiences former superpowers.Lihaas (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
As has been noted, this seems to come up every so often, everyone seems in broad agreement that it needs to change when it does so, and then somehow it fizzles out with nothing being done. Therefore I'm going to be bold and change it to broadly to where I believe consensus is across the various discussions. However, I am going to leave out anything of a rare nature that is probably better left to ITN/C (ITNR should not attempt to cover all the bases). No doubt there'll be objections but here is the place to discuss them. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC).
Now done. I've roughly based them on the proposals given above with a few alterations:
  • I've restricted manned spaceflight to orbital spaceflight: If RIchard Branson is to be believed sub-orbital tourist flights will soon be routine. The first few of those will doubtless be shoe-ins for posting but that is what ITN/C is for.
  • I've also specified the arrival rather than launch of space probes: that tends to be the portion that receives the most media coverage.
As always, happy to discuss, though I don't expect those revisions to stand without alterations hopefully we can get the ball moving. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Champions Leageu 2020

crickets premier "domestic" 20/20 tournament (Champions League Twenty20) akin to the soccer champs' league and also a part of the 2nd most popular sport in the world. we should list it here, and the first possible ITNR may be due up within the next few days.

also for domestic first class tournaments, county cricket in england and wales should be included.Lihaas (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Page view stats for 2010 English cricket season are on GAA-level, while 2011_Champions_League_Twenty20 looks rather impressive. –HTD 03:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
good to go and be BOLD on the latter at least?Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's wait. A 9-hour discussion won't be enough, anywhere. –HTD 09:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Domestic cricket isn't really like domestic leagues in other sports - in cricket the e.g. county and state sides serve mostly to develop players for the international teams. As for the T20 Champions League, this is only its second incarnation and we're yet to see whether it's going to be seen as a major tournament. I don't think the domestic first class championships are significant enough, and the champions league should probably be left to ITN/C for the moment. Modest Genius talk 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Any new inclusion from now on (and probably any untested items in the list) should be nominated first at ITN/C before being listed here. –HTD 19:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Most sports are of no practical consequence or historical importance

I propose that all recurring items concerning sports be replaced by a corresponding number of recurring issues concerning labor issues and events. Dualus (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There are really no "labour issues and events" that occur frequently and consistently enough (or really matter that much) to be listed on ITNR, whereas sporting events occur at regular time periods and have a lot more people interested in them. IgnorantArmies 06:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You mean the "we'd discuss this endlessly but someone will post anyway but they'll crucify the admin who posted" blurb for the resolution of 2011 NBA lockout if it ends after November 1, 2011?" :P –HTD 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have similar views to Dualus in respect of the amount of sport on ITN - it seems many of the entries are not there because of any intrinsic level of notability or newsworthiness but a view that "it's that sport's turn" even if it is a minority sport virtually no-one is interested in. Personally I'd quite like to see an "automatic weeding" where if eligible stories are not posted or nominated so many times they lose their ITNR status. At the moment it is too easy for a small group of editors to argue passionately for the inclusion of a given entry claiming a great level of interest for the topic but that does not translate into articles being developed or nominations made. When that's the case those entries have no business being on ITNR. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC).
Hmm, what do you exactly mean with "minority sport virtually no-one is interested in"? When we're talking about ITNR, I think there are quite few such sports on the list. Remember that "minority sport" is very much dependent on your POV, ie. where you live. For example, most Europeans don't find American football quite at all relevant, and football means something altogether different in Australia, while most people in non-Commonwealth countries think cricket is an insect and very few Africans have ever played ice hockey. --hydrox (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of regional biases in this sort of thing but there are also entries that scream of a minority interest making a fuss. How did handball get on the list? Netball? Badminton? Volleyball? These are not truly major sports anywhere as far as I am aware, with the possible exception of netball, but even that is only in schools. When were they last nominated? What are they doing on ITNR? Crispmuncher (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC).
Volleyball is a major sport. Just not popular in the U.S. and U.K. GreyHood Talk 13:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It certainly isn't a major sport here in the UK. The only time any attention is paid to it at all is beach volleyball at the Olympics. That has more to do with the attire of the competitors than anything to do with the sport per se. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC).
Poker? on wha t was poker ever added?Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

IUPAP and IUPAC naming

To prevent repetitiveness, suggest that we change the line on naming elements from Both the initial discovery and the official naming by IUPAC or IUPAP(generally several years apart) to Both the initial discovery and the official naming by whichever of IUPAC and IUPAP acts first Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I was the one who proposed exactly this on WP:ITN/C, I support it. That could be phrased better, but that's easy enough to edit after the fact. Modest Genius talk 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

politics/elections

while sovereign state elections are ITNR already, im proposing that all govt changes be ITNR too as notable to the same soveriegn states.Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is defining exactly what counts as a change of government, and the fact that that is not the same thing as a change in the head of government. Obviously complete replacement of the government in a large country with a new prime minister and cabinet after a general election should go up. But what if there are minor changes to coalitions? A new head of government but the rest of the cabinet remaining the same? What about places where the government is simply appointed by the head of state, e.g. the Minister of State of Monaco? Do we really need to post every time the Prime Minister of Tuvalu decides to reshuffle the Cabinet of Tuvalu? Unless you can suggest some rock-solid set of criteria, I'd say this is best left to ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 13:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
yes, good point. I meant change at the "heads of..." position, which gets consensus on ITNC regularly. Like Belarus, Slovakia, Greece, etc. even without electionsLihaas (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Kabbadi WC

in light of various minor and regional sports that dont have ANY global note O(gaelic football, etc) on ITN. I think the Kabbadi World Cup should be on here. Ilm going to be WP:BOLD and add it, if someone objects then we can quarantin that bit and discuss further.Lihaas (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you can consider this to be an objection then. Other stuff exists is not a rationale to add something else, indeed it is an implicit acknowledgment of the weaknesses of its case. How many of our readers have even heard of the sport? This is not a place for pet interests: ITNR items must be things of broad interest and ideally that have gone through a full and successful ITN/C discussion at least once: wiithout that it is very difficult to show that consensus for even a single post exists, yet alone a recurring one. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC).
Support If people's standards here are so low to say that Gaelic football, a sport played in a country the size of Jalisco, is an international sport while saying basketball, the second-most played sport in the world, is a minor sport that no one cares about, I'd support this and I'd help in maintaining a world cup article if you can give me nice English language sources. Then list this at ITN/C and see if it sticks; if it does, then lets list this ITNR. I'm also thinking of doing the same for sepak takraw too. –HTD 04:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Can someone give make a reasonably detailed case for Kabbadi's inclusion? I'm inclined to support if adequate sources are found and if the articles are up to scratch, which I imagine will be a challenge; However, I'd like someone with more knowledge than me to outline the sports' notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth summits

As representative of a large body of the world population im proposing this be added to the list of summits for ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, since COGM rarely does anything beyond deal with its own internal affairs (unlike e.g. the G20). Modest Genius talk 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
according to the last update g20 goesnt yield much either,Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I think these arguments are a good case that both events should not be on ITNR, but may be nominated if something notable happens.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Marathons

propose adding the Mumbai marathon for diversity and that its ranked as a GOLD race (whatever that means)Lihaas (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The existing five are the World Marathon Majors. I don't think we should add any more. Modest Genius talk 22:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
fair , but to add somethign non-western. Singapore marathon is older, maybe that add something.Lihaas (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I personally think we have too many marathons. I'd suggest dropping the Chicago Marathon at least and maybe the Berlin Marathon. Either one could be posted if something unusual happened.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deaths

proposal to add deaths to ITNR. I think former and sitting heads of state/government and notable people in their field who have been internationally recognised by some award or such should be ITNR when they die.Lihaas (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically, this is not a recurring item. We do have elaborated criteria on posting deaths of important people so I don't see a need to have it duplicated. --Tone 08:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deaths do not recur, thus do not fall under the remit of this page. They already have their own section of the criteria anyway. Modest Genius talk 13:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I know its nt ITNR and re-occur, but i though t of some firm criteria for ITNR deaths as per suggested abvoe for sitting/former heads of state or notable leaureates/sports figures, that usually get past ITNC anyways.Lihaas (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem that I see is that this would open up an entirely new avenue for debate with all the issues that creates. It is apparent at times that even ITNR is not as closely scrutinized as ITN/C and paradoxically it is easier to get some things accepted there. It is therefore vulnerable to pet interests - the much criticized Gaelic football for example. On the other hand even if such a list was to be effectively debated, maintained and policed it would absorb huge amounts of time in heated and utterly pointless debates: is an Olympic medal worth as much as a Nobel prize for example? Or the perennial desire for standardisation, as if all actors who ever won an Oscar are automatically equivalent.
These things only ever work where the amount of effort and debate and the quality of "pre-approved" outcomes is improved by that kind of list. I can see it going one way or the other - a good list at huge maintenance cost, or poorly maintained list that lacks the confidence of the community - but I can't see it solving the problem in a manner preferable to case by case debates. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC).
You're looking for WP:LILP, which was marked as historical a few days ago. –HTD 03:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: Poker

NOTE: I should note that I did notify WP:POKER of the proposed ban on Poker from the ITN.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a nomination on ITN for a Poker Tournament which I learn is included in the INTR list. Can someone please explain why we give prominence to this glorified hobby? Front page inclusion is supposed to be a) hard fought, or b) earned through credibility. I cannot attach televised gambling with the word 'credible', and wonder if others here could?

In short - I would like to question whether Wikipedia should remove any Poker tournament 'development' from ITNR. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See this. Furthermore, it's probably the right time to purge the list. Those that had not been posted for the past 2 years/times the event recurred should be removed. Those that have not been previously posted but has been added should go through ITN/C first and not be subject to ITNR. –HTD 18:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
That consensus was fairly weak, but it does make sense. I'm not quite sure what the argument for removing it is, outside of I don't like it. It might only be a "hobby" for some, but so are all sports. Also, as mentioned on the nominations page, players from across the world participate in the tournament mentioned, and it receives substantial coverage in the press. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
SMH... WP:CENSOR is the first thing that comes to mind.
As for it being a "glorified hobby", um the US Courts ruled in 1986 in William E. Baxter Jr. vs. the United States that Poker is not subject to the IRS rules related to gambling, but rather those related to a profession. To call poker a "glorified hobby" is like calling professional soccer/football/rugby/tennis players "glorified hobbiest". Would you object to a proposal announcing the winner of the last world Chess Championship? (Wait it was ITN 11 May 2010.) More people play poker professionally than play chess and there is more money in poker than chess. (Many of the top poker players are former chess masters. The current WSOP Champion was a ranked globally in Chess and 1995 Dan Harrington was a Chess Grandmaster.)
ITN haas carried other events that I've never heard of... it's posted the winner of Hot Dog Eating Competitions and US Chicken Wing Eating Contests.
As for the WSOP being significant enough? This is THE tournament in Poker and has been around for over 4 decades. Over the past few years there have been over 28[1] different TV series in the US alone about poker. Online Poker Revenue was around 7 Billion dollars in 2010 and an estimated 55 million people play poker.
At the 2011 WSOP there were players from over 90 countries (70+ in the Main Event alone) and over 68,000 entrants into the various tournaments and a prize pool close to 200 Million dollars. The WSOP Main Event posts the largest prize around. The 8.7 Million dollars is larger than the biggest payout for Golf, Tennis, NASCAR, Swimming, Horse Racing, Dog Shows---and if I remember correctly, you could take the biggest payouts from those an not equal that of the ME!
The competition is so popular that ESPN doubled its coverage this year (after increasing it each of the last 3 or 4 years!) According to ESPN, the 2011 viewership experienced double digit increases[2].[3] 80 Million people watch the WSOP on espn annually[4] While official numbers are not in, it was estimated that between 10-30 million people globally would tune into online the Final Table coverage last night.[5] If this were nothing more than a "glorified hobby" without notability then ESPN would not have won an Emmy for its 2009 coverage of the WSOP ME Final Table or be nominated again in 2010
Coverage of the Main Event can be found in: CNN, Sky News, USA Today, MSNBC, CBS, ESPN, Bloomberg, Washington Post, Las Vegas Sun, Tulsa World, All Headline News, Seattle Times, International Business Times, NBC, Marketwatch, Houston Chronicle, Fox Sports, Las Vegas Review Journal, Bleecher Report, Peoria Journal Star, SignOnSandiego, Albany Times Union, TheNewsTribune, Turkish Press, ABC News, Deseret News, Reno Gazette Journal, AP, Greenfield Daily Reporter, Greenwich Time, BBC News, San Fran Chronicle, San Antonio express, The Chronicle, eTaiwan News, Huffington Post, etc. This is just a partial list of reliable sources that cover this "glorified game." In past years, the Main Event winner has been the guest on late night talk shows and covered in traditional monthly news magazines.
The notability of this event is without question, I think the person who raised the subject just doesn't like the idea of Poker being a viable subect and wants his personal views to censor the project.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The Chicken Wing eating competition (YUM) was posted as a prank. Dunno if the hot dog eating competition was previously posted. –HTD 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough on the chicken, I think I saw the Hot Dog one, but can't find it... but the fact remains, that Poker is a tremendously popular passtime and the WSOP Main Event is considered to be THE single most important tournament of the year. Assuming the article meets the quality threshold, there should be no reason why the WSOP Main Event winner shouldn't be a reoccuring entry.
Also note, somebody in the above linked discussion mentioned that there wasn't much coverage of the 2010 WSOP... that's not true. Coverage occured in hundreds of media outlets every year---and I'm explicitly excluding poker/gambling sources.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that ESPN has been broadcasting the WSOP for close to a decade now and renewed its contract through 2018(?).---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you saw an FA of the hot dog eating contest? I think it was featured. As for ESPN, I'm speculating/guessing, but isn't the 2011 NBA lockout one of the reasons why ESPN extended their coverage? They'd have to fill the timeslots lost to the lockout... (ranting now lol. And the conclusion of that lockout isn't even a sure bet at ITN, laughingly, because, get ready for this, it is "US-centric non-story about a minority sport.", that "the only people who will care about this are the people who follow this ridiculous game", and it's "US-centric with little interest outside of the US".) If that won't be posted, don't expect this one, either. –HTD 19:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No, the announcement to double the coverage of the WSOP was made on May 6.[6] As for US-centric (and I know you were lamenting your NBA above)... this years Final Table was the most internationally diverse one ever. 7 different countries were represented in the November 9. I was happy when I saw that a German won it, because it then becomes more international ;-)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to have some stated criteria for making sports events ITNR. Maybe something like "Can reasonably be expected to make front-page news in more than one English-speaking country". Is that too strict? Don't forget that sports that don't make the cut could still be nominated for ITN through the regular process. --FormerIP (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I thought I'd mention that the problem with the hot-dog eating story was that the sauce wasn't considered reliable enough. --FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that "can reasonably be expected to make front-page news in more than one English-speaking country" is a way too strict criterion. --hydrox (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
By that criteria you eliminate 90% of the ITNR list and you give preference to small countries. Suddenly two English speaking countries with a total population of less than NY City can announce the outcome between their national rowing teams and it's front page news. But something that has profound effect/meaning in a larger country doesn't get picked up elsewhere.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow A lot to go through. First off, this is not "I don't like it". This is, specifically, "I don't agree with it". Next, this is not Censor. This is "I believe the ITNR list to have within it events which are lack credible notability." Next thing - I would suggest that someone so closely linked to the ""sport"" of Poker will inevitably eulogise rather than argue their case. I have no problem with taking each Poker event on merit, case-by-case. My issue is with the event being considered at the same level as, amongst other things, the death of a Monarch and the FIFA World Cup Final. ITNR should not be helping up by the braces any event which is , ultimately, a rather fringe hobby which has over inflated importance through half-decent television coverage. "American TV over inflates the importance of something" is not exactly news, is it? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, I missed the ITNR there... you had just posted that you thought the discussion on the nom page should be removed and then came back and posted this. I thought you were trying to close the discussion, but misread so my apologies there.
As for the rest of the case... sorry, but the WSOP had over 98 countries participate this year. About a third of the participants in the Main Event were not Americans. 7 countries were represented at the final table. 4 of the past 5 ME champions are from other countries. About a third of the bracelets won this year went to non-americans.
If you look at non-english websites you will see hundreds of thousands of hits for the 2011 WSOP. And MILLIONS participate in this every year.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion is inherently of whether or not poker should be an item in the INTR list, because WSOP is easily the largest and most international poker tournament in the world (look at the nationalities of the latest Main Event winners.) I disagree that poker is a "glorified hobby". There are many people these days who play poker professionally all around the world, and while I have no idea of the annual turnover of all online and offline poker, the figure must be quite staggering. Wikipedia also has an extensive coverage of poker-related articles, which I think also makes a case for the inclusion of the world's largest poker tournament. --hydrox (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the candidates page, the ESPN ratings for the last big WSOP final were about 5% of those for an ordinary NFL game. It's just not a major spectator sport. (Neither is marathon racing, but that's another discussion.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If you are going to compare the coverage to FIFA football or American Football, then no---they aren't as big. But neither would all of the Rugby events that are constantly ITN, or Cricket, table tennis, pool, etc. The importance of an event is not dictated by coverage. (But it is telling that ESPN is pushing for closer to live coverage---30 minute delay in June/July and now 15 minute delay in November.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 03:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Also, very few sports will have the coverage of the NFL---nothing competes with the NFL in the US. Other sports might get coverage elsewhere, but how did Cricket/Rugby do compared to the NFL? Are there really enough major rugby events that the champion needs to be ITN every other month?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
@Mwalcoff--regarding marathon racing not being a popular spectator sport, I imagine you haven't watched the New York City Marathon in person.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Poker in ITN/R "glorified hobby"? Couldn't the same thing be said about every sport? There is no reason why every sport must conform with the meat-heads with pig-skins paradigm to warrant recognition in ITN. All sports bring a mental factor to the battlefield, and some sports are entirely mental (no pun intended), such as chess and poker. Besides, one of the primary purposes behind ITN is to bring international attention to issues/items that have otherwise limited exposure - how else do we explain the inclusion of hurling, handball and Gaelic football in ITN/R? Deterence Talk 07:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Rugby and cricket are a lot bigger than poker, even if it would be hard to tell from America. I'm of the belief there are too many sports results on ITN for things like marathons and hurling with limited fan interest. I don't think it's a goal of ITN to "bring international attention to issues/items that have otherwise limited exposure." The purposes of ITN are clearly spelled out on WP:ITN, and that's not one of them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
How do you define bigger? Number of adults who play? Estimates are that 55 Million Adults play poker. How much money is spent on the activity? Online Poker is a seven billion dollar industry. Number of people to participate in the event? There were almost 70,000 paid entries into various WSOP events this past year with a total prize pool of close to 200 million dollars---and that's just the WSOP. And the perponderance of that money was put up by the individuals themselves (not by corporate sponsors.) If you look at the number of people who play, how much they pay, the prize pools, etc Poker is a bigger event than Rugby or Cricket. More people are aware of the WSOP than are aware of 95% of the rugby/cricket events that get coverage ITN. Those events may get a lot of coverage wher they are, but that doesn't compare to the millions of people who play poker online or watch it on tv/internet. And the TV coverage is not isolated to the US, Heinz says that he started playing poker because he watched the WSOP on TV (in Germany.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, we should point out the amount of revenue of the individual competitions. The NFL just had a strike, at issue was the 9 Billion dollars in revenue the NFL makes every year. The NBA is currently on strike, at issues is the 4 billion dollars in revenue the NBA makes every year. Last year Online Poker generated over 7 BILLION dollars in revenue---that's not the amount of money that was waged or traded hands, that is the amount of money that the online poker sites made! That does not include the billions of dollars spent in the numerous poker halls around the world. Nor does it include the various free/home poker games. Nor does it include revenue for the televised shows and live tournaments. The NFL/NBA revenue includes all sources---TV, Radio, Stadium, collectibles, apparrel, etc. So in terms of revenue generated by the sport (used very loosely) Poker is almost as big as the NFL globally!---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You're comparing poker as a participatory gambling activity to football as a spectator sport alone. Apples to oranges -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about the revenue generated by the sport. Not the amount wagered, but the rake that the online companies make. But the fact remains that Rugby and Cricket can't even come close to the revenues generated by poker... and even if you include wagering revenues for Basketball, I doubt that you'd be able to make up the 3-4 BILLION dollar difference.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 00:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Farming is a $300 billion industry in the U.S. alone. But we don't include the plowing-match championship. But rugby and cricket are included because of their interest as spectator sports. Poker is big as a participatory activity, but not as a spectator sport. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
And poker should be included because it is a participatory sport which has over 55 million ADULT participants---PokerStars alone had an estimated 38 million members! More adults play poker than Rugby and and Cricket combined. The top earners in Poker make more money than the top earners than Rugby/Cricket (BTW what was their nielsen ratings?) More money is spent on poker than Rugby/Cricket combine... and we somehow have something like 18 events that are on the ITNR for those two sports? I can see 2 or 3 each, but 18 events that deserve automatic passes? There is no doubt that there is a powerful element ITNR that supports their inclusion, but really? 18 events?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
You keep missing the point. We should only include sports or games events or things like entertainment awards if people are interested in the event itself, not the general field. Millions of people play Scrabble, but we don't have the world Scrabble championship because not that many people are interested in the championship itself. (I wouldn't mind including the Scrabble championship once as a quirky thing if there was a really good article on it, but not in ITN/R.) Lots of people are interested in poker, the game, but not nearly as many are interested in the news of who won the WSOP. (We shouldn't have all the marathons on ITN/R for the same reason.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of media coverage about this years WSOP poker final. There is clearly a lot of interest. Its also well worth pointing out that while the consensus to add it was "fairly weak" - well that's what you get every time you try and add anything at all to any Wikipedia policy/guideline, in fact as about 3-4 people commented its almost certainly significantly above average. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There's probably a lot of media coverage, but probably not in the supposedly ITNR levels. For all of its worth, the ESPN website doesn't have a dedicated poker section linked in its directory. –HTD 14:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Look again... on their page, goto other sports, third column at the top is the link for Poker. Missed the one for Cricket. ESPN has dedicated reporters who cover Poker and even have a monthly ranking system of the best poker players in the world. As for rising to the appropriate level? Virtually every major newspaper in the US and many outside of the US reported Heinz' winning the title. It was covered on just about all of the major newsfeeds and on many national newsprograms. I'm sorry, but when a story gets global coverage, then I think it rises to that level.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It's in "other sports". That settles my argument. It's not like the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NCAA FB, NCAA BB, NASCAR, SOCCER, etc. (Notice how it goes from most popular to the least, and poker didn't even make it!) The LA Times website has pages for the Lakers, Dodgers, Kings even high school sports, and no poker. Since poker is an "American" sport (just as basketball is), it should at least have a prominent link in a high profile sports website such as ESPN. Cricket isn't an American sport so we won't base its popularity on ESPN alone. Global coverage? Yes, with Heinz winning. Did we have "global coverage" on each and every stage of the tournament, just like for NBA or Premiere League games? –HTD 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe ITNR could be restricted (at least) to sports that are routinely covered on the sports pages of national newspapers in the countries where they are played. --FormerIP (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't apply to poker or chess as neither are sports. ESPN may cover poker, but it's a competition not a sport.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Would it be OK if we call it competitions? And what countries? We'd leave out a country such as the Philippines (93 million people, around 45 million English speakers, and #7 in Wikipedia page views) and include (the Rep. of) Ireland (4 million mostly English-speaking people with a measly 0.7% of Wikipedia's page views)? –HTD 15:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Coverage exists outside the US, here are just a few of the searches that I did on "2011 WSOP" (back when it was ITN/C), I could have possibly found more using other terms:
Arabic [7] 17,200
Chinese (simplified) [8] 81,900
Chinese (traditional) [9] 48,600
French [10] 7,910,000 <--this number is probably artificially inflated as France hosted the World Series of Poker Europe this year, so a fair number of those hits are probably about the WSOPE.
German [11] 409,000
Swedish [12] 145,000
Turkish [13] 21,200
Korean [14] 30,800
Italian [15] 284,000
Russian [16] 700,000
Spanish [17] 368,000
Vietnamese [18] 42,400
Finnish [19] 39,000---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Good God, we already saw these before. These are standard Google search hits. Do we have, say, mainstream Spanish sports news coverage of Heinz winning on the early part of the tournament? –HTD 16:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't make the distinction between sport and competition. I don't think we should have poker because you wouldn't normally see it on the sports pages. I don't have much of an opinion about chess, but I think maybe it will sometimes be on the sports pages, depending what paper you get and where in the world you are. --FormerIP (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
There's logic for you... it's not a sport, "but I don't think we should have poker because you wouldn't normally see it on the sports page." Well duh! If it's not a sport of course it won't be on the sports page.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
You're saying it's not a sport, not I. Chess and snooker are both covered by the Guardian as sports (see right hand bar [20]).--FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
In my neck of the woods chess and snooker's American cousin pool is on the sports page... –HTD 16:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
If we were to go by that rule of thumb, rugby, baseball, chess and figure skating would all (potentially only) be ITNR, whereas poker, BMX freestyle, Scrabble and bog snorkelling would not. My instinct is that that's a good way to do it. I don't think it's about whether you can do it sitting down or even how popular it is, but about the degree to which reliable sources treat it as a significant mainstream sport. --FormerIP (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing items from the list

Someone mentioned purging the list of sports above. I suggest you start with Super Rugby and the Heineken Cup. They are both superseded by the The Rugby Championship and Six Nations Championship in level of play so I don't think they really warrant a place. I know the super rugby final was not even nominated this year and remember reading a comment somewhere here that neither had the Heineken Cup. Others should also be removed, but as a common argument that springs up is "but such and such is mentioned" it might be easier to work from the bottom up. AIRcorn (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry there is no superseded by here Super Rugby is the top club level league in the area, The Rugby Championship is played between National teams. The Heineken Cup is played between top European teams based upon performance the previous season and only last years winner gets to play automatically, think UEFA Champions League for Rugby and the Six Nations Championship is played between National teams.
Would support Removing Super Rugby; and the procedural replacement of Tri-Nations with The Rugby Championship. Mtking (edits) 01:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay superseded is maybe the wrong word, but the national competitions are at a higher level than the club ones. The national teams use players from the club competitions and roughly cover the same regional area. I would also think they come as a package deal, you can't include the northern hemisphere club competition and not the southern. AIRcorn (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Problem is Super Rugby does not equate to Heineken Cup they are not even similar; one is the top league covering AUS, NZ and SA, with teams playing in, and only in, that league whereas teams playing in the Heineken Cup first and foremost play in their respective countries league and performance in those leagues in one season decides if you play in the Heineken Cup next season as well as in your domestic league. If you want to make comparisons to what Super Rugby best equates to in the Northern Hemisphere (in terms of structure) it is probably the Celtic League. Mtking (edits) 06:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't really explain why would you include the Heineken Cup and not Super Rugby. It could be compared the other way too, with the Heineken Cup similar to old school Super 10 when the top provincial teams from SA, NZ and Aussie played each other. Now Super Rugby takes the best players from all the countries provincial or club competitions. It could be argued that this makes it a higher level of competition than the Heineken Cup as it guarantees the best players are playing each other. However that is all beside the point. If the ITN/R sports items are supposed to represent the highest level of competition for popular sports, then that does not include Super Rugby or the Heineken Cup as there is a level higher for both. AIRcorn (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
As I said first off the Heineken Cup is to European Rugby Union what the UEFA Champions League is to European Soccer, Super Rugby is not the Rugby Union version of OFC Champions League is it ? Mtking (edits) 10:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that I don't remember the Super League ever being added, nor the H-Cup being added when the final doesn't involve Irish teams. –HTD 10:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Then there would be little practical loss to removing them, but it would lessen the "but rugby has five argument". I assume you are meaning Super Rugby above? AIRcorn (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes Super Rugby. Well it depends. If Irish teams made it to the final there'd be a very strong lobbying in ITN/C to include a blurb, and to relist it back at ITNR. If it doesn't nobody even bothers nominating it at ITN/C; moreso in Super 14. Which also means Super Rugby should get in since if the Northern Hemisphere championship (essentially UK+FRA+ITA) is listed, so should be the Southern Hemisphere championship (essentially RSA+AUS+NZ) too. –HTD 14:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
These are the results of ITN/C discussions involving the H-Cup, Irish teams italicized:
  • 2011 Northampton vs Leinster: Tagged as ready but was never posted. Discussion
  • 2010 Toulousain vs Biarritz: Not nominated. See archive.
  • 2009 Leicester vs Leinster: Posted. Discussion.
  • 2008 Munster vs Toulouse: Posted, pulled then posted. Discussion.
  • 2007 Leicester vs London Wasps: Not posted. Discussion.
I'm too lazy to look for discussions on Super Rugby but I'm pretty sure they've never been posted. If this is removed though, and an Irish team makes it to the final, expect major whining come May, and comparisons to the Super Bowl. –HTD 18:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems like there is whining with most things posted there (and on many other Wikipedia pages), although judging by the inclusion of Gaelic Football and Hurling there must be a few Irish sports fans interested in ITN. They could still be nominated, just miss out on the free pass. These appear to be the most obvious competitions that are included while a higher level exists, covers the same geographic area and is played every year (admittedly I know more about this sport than any of the others). AIRcorn (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding items

Can't we have a rule here that on adding items, aside from being discussed here and having consensus to be added, it should go through the normal ITN/C procedure the first time it'll be attempted to be posted? This should also apply on items already on the list but had never been posted. –HTD 18:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely sounds the way to go. It shouldn't be on ITN/R if there is no consensus on significance, and everyone should have their say even if they are not watching ITN/R talk. --hydrox (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
But then we have to put up with the tedious whining that goes on on WP:ITNC instead. The oldest current story is a week old for gods sake. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
People whine there all the time so it makes no difference. –HTD 03:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
True enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
If an item in ITN/R is added without sufficient consensus, there is only more whining and the possibility of an edit war. I'd weakly support a rule that it must go through ITN/C first, but this page should most definitely not be boldly edited. Mamyles (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Only Lihaas is into boldly adding items to the list anyway so... –HTD 08:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment on CONTENT not editors thats an NPA. an d btw- it was done under the previous suggestiong of someone else ifyou mustknow!Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey... can this be agreed upon? We can locate items that had not been posted the last 2 times the event occurred; it stays on the list, but on the next time it happens, it should go through like an ordinary ITN/C item. If it's posted it remains in the list and shouldn't have to go through the normal ITN/C process the next time it happens. If it's not posted it should be stricken off the list, then on the next time it happens it should go through the normal ITN/C process before it gets to be suggested here again. Also, no more new suggestions -- try it first at ITN/C and if it's posted, suggest it here; and events that are happening more than 5 years apart shouldn't be here as we shouldn't rely consensus 5 years ago in posting items. –HTD 19:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer things to be the other way around - items go through ITN/C, get posted, and then added here (either through discussion on this talk page, or on ITN/C - both have happened in the past). Nor do I think that some arbitrary purging would be a good idea. If there are some specific items which have a problem please raise them here, rather than proposing some catch-all 'everything not posted for 2 years' clause. Modest Genius talk 12:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
That's OK too (I think that was in my proposal -- all new items should be discussed first at ITN/C rather than here -- or maybe I just got lazy). The thing is with some items that are not being posted, it seems pointless if they're here but are not posted because nobody bothered to write up a decent update (not terribly hard to do if I may add). The list should be sorta like FAs, once they get in a crappy state, they should go a review. Same thing here, when it's not being posted, something should happen. –HTD 14:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. But let's review them on a case-by-case basis, like FAR. Modest Genius talk 14:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well that defeats the purpose of having of ITNR where items should be posted every time it occurs, right? If it can't/won't be posted for any reason consecutive times, it should be off the list. –HTD 16:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was, if there's an item which fails to go up a few times when it should have done, discuss it here. Use that to remove the item, rather than some automatic system. Modest Genius talk 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
They'll not be removed -- it's like they're on probation -- they'll just be subjected into regular ITN/C discussion the next time they're nominated and once it's OK they'll be posted, then on the next time they won't need a regular ITN/C discussion. Now if they are nominated while on probation and is still not posted then there's something wrong now and probably a long drawn-out discussion for it's removal is in order (which will conclude with the item staying on the list anyway). –HTD 03:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

New elements

I posted this to ITN/C without realizing that it is already on ITN/R. I don't mean to challenge the technical complexity of these experiments, or the importance of updates to the periodic table, but it almost seems like fabrication of new elements has become routine. Bombard element A with element B in a laboratory, get a few atoms with a very short half life, and determine the properties mathematically. None of these new elements are natural, and I'm wondering if the results of these experiments are truly newsworthy outside the physics community. I think a naturally occurring element discovered in nature is an obvious post, I'm just not sure if this is. Of course I could be utterly wrong, but if I am, how so? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardly routine with only 4 unconfirmed discoveries in the last 10 years. Unless someone comes up with a better way of synthesising these elements there's not much danger of the rate increasing either as the list of new elements that can be easily made with the available building blocks will gradually decrease. JMiall₰ 13:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure there have only been 4 in the last 10 years? There have been 4 proposed at ITN in the last few weeks. --FormerIP (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

These are the only 2 in recent months I can find in the archives:

  • Nov 2011 - The elements Darmstadtium, Roentgenium and Copernicium are named by the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
  • June 2011 - An IUPAC committee acknowledges the discovery of the transuranium elements ununquadium and ununhexium

with these 2 posted the year before:

  • April 2010 - The creation of ununseptium, element with atomic number 117, is announced
  • Feb 2010 - IUPAC officially names the element with atomic number of 112 as copernicium in honour of Nicolaus Copernicus (pictured)

There are several stages in discoving and naming a new element, if I understand the process correctly they should go something like this:

  1. Someone discovers the element (at which point it is called something like Ununquadium)
  2. Someone else confirms the discovery
  3. The discovery is confirmed by a body like IUPAC or IUPAP
  4. The original discoverer proposes several names (like Flerovium)
  5. IUPAC/IUPAP decide if the names are acceptable and recommends one
  6. The element is officially named

There are often many years between the stages and it seems some stages can happen more than once. ITN/R currently has the publication of the discovery and first official naming. This seems sensible to me and I'd also be happy with the 1st confirmation by an official body & 1st official naming. JMiall₰ 11:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been mulling this a few days and am a bit torn. Part of me thinks "it's once or twice a year, so who cares". On the other hand, there are lots of other scientific experiments going on all the time, and the results from those (such as a metallic microlattice) have to go through the usual nomination process at ITN/C. Finally, and this may be offensive to some, I don't think it qualifies as discovery when you deliberately try to manufacture it in a laboratory environment. It's not as if someone were prospecting and stumbled across a new element. Anyway, I didn't come here to throw down and demand that it be removed from ITN/R. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
That is a valid concern, but our coverage of science topics is poor (at least beyond astronomy). Whilst the utility of creating new elements is debatable, at least we're guaranteed that in 100 years time they will still be on the periodic table. That's much harder to say for other experiments. I'd prefer to add additional science topics, either through ITN/C nominations or through ITNR, than remove new elements. Modest Genius talk 12:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Question: were there instances where new elements that were created did not reach the 6th step after being recognized by the IUPAP/IUPAC? –HTD 17:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The sport event of the week

WP:ITN/C, the place to nominate new items. Just posted, otherwise. --Tone 21:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's good that Feroang posted this here. Part of the discussion over at WP:ITN/C was along the lines of "If this is really so important, why isn't it a recurring item?" Well, why? HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Elections of very small countries (originally "Kiribati")

See closing rationale above. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

  • this not very significant addition to ITN. The importance in the world wide political scheme of things of this small Pacific island is not demonstrated. I'm utterly surprised to see it get through. There was only ONE vote. It should be taken down. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Concur with Ohconfucius. Can a kind soul link me to the WP:ITN/R discussion that pertains to the decision to report all national-level elections on ITN? Colipon+(Talk) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The importance of several other items that appear in ITN is often not of worldwide impotance. But ITN is not a news ticker. Posting the national election results even for small countries has been around for ages, probably even before ITNR was written. --Tone 16:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • This is not a reason to keep it around, if there is good reason to change it. To my understanding, ITN is supposed to be informative, but first and foremost its purpose is to showcase good articles. To me, posting elections of microstates is not only irrelevant, but it also puts substandard articles smack in the middle of the website's main page. We could have, for example, posted the Supreme Court appearance of the Pakistan prime minister, which would be able to showcase the article for Yousaf Raza Gillani, which is in much better shape (and much more relevant to a greater audience) than any Pacific island election. But I stress again, if there is some sort of consensus providing a rationale for this, I would like to see it. But otherwise I plan on challenging this practice as it seems rather absurd. Colipon+(Talk) 17:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion should not be on WP:ERRORS. Take it to WT:ITNR or WT:ITN. Modest Genius talk 17:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Please don't strike my comments, whoever it was, without noting that this discussion has been moved. Modest Genius talk 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked through the ITNR archives, and I couldn't find any discussion about adding "all elections" to the ITNR page in the first place. Hot StopUTC 20:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to question the wisdom to the entire section entitled "Elections and Heads of State", and there is no comprehensive discussion over this issue in the archives (correct me if I'm wrong.) We need to have that comprehensive discussion of what constitutes a good ITN/R worthy event when it comes to politics. Here is the section in question:

  • The results of the elections for head of state:
    • In the 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 the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where head of state is not an elected position.

Note that coronations, inaugurations, etcetera are generally not posted. 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.

I would like to challenge the current system on two different issues:

  1. The elections of minor states. I raise several reasons above: (1) the general lack of notability (2) the lack of reader interest (3) the incompleteness or mediocre quality of articles displayed on the main page.
  2. The requirement of "every head of state": many heads of state are simply figureheads. The President of Germany, for example, or the President of India. Few people have ever heard of these individuals, even though they are the heads of state of two of the world's most important nations. I do not think a change in head of state is notable per se - one would have to take some extenuating circumstances into account.
  • Currently, for example, our ITN has an election of Taiwan (which is not considered part of the "List of Sovereign States" and therefore must always be nominated on ITN/C) but whose election is almost always notable and receives global coverage; and the election of Kiribati, which is not covered by any international media save perhaps a few newspapers out of Australia (and the country itself). To me, the current requirement to post every single election of every single sovereign state is absurd. Colipon+(Talk) 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
To briefly summarise a post of mine from the other discussion - Define "minor state". Without a precise definition, this will achieve nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If it were up to me, only the very major countries with clear global influence should go into ITN/R. This is more or less defined as the G20. Every other election should be ITN/C, determined based on their own merits. I realize that this definition can be a little problematic, but this is not a reason to pretend there isn't a problem. If we absolutely cannot achieve a consensus on what this "minor state" criteria is, then the solution is to get rid of this entire category of ITN/Rs and determine everything based on merit. Colipon+(Talk) 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
(eb) Let's just define it by the land size. Like Vatican and Monaco, the two smallest countries. I don't think anyone would oppose posting a change of the head of state in those two... There are almost 40 countries that are even smaller than Kiribati! I'd say let's stick with the quality of update, if it is good, I see no reason not to post it. After all, we tend to have an international ITN and while some countries are regularly featured, other would never make it otherwise. And we feature stories such as scientific discoveries and other stuff that won't affect majority of people on the short scale anyway. --Tone 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I am most definitely open to post elections of 'minor' states if the article is in good condition and/or if the election itself is particularly notable. But this should be a case-by-case decision. Colipon+(Talk) 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree on case-to-case. In any case, not all ITNR items make it to the Main page, some discussion is always helpful. --Tone 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a feeling that a change in the Head of State of the Vatican City might be notable. I♦A 01:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I am starting to think if ITN needs to have a look at what it is aims are, is it to act as a source of the top international news headlines, in which case how does that sit with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER or is it more to help inform readers, and broaden their general knowledge, so by posting about elections in, for example Jamaica, as we did a few weeks back sent me off to read up and learn about politics there in a way that for example the election of the next US president is not going to - I will have got all I need to know about that (and frankly probably a lot more) from traditional news sources. Mtking (edits) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Totally agree. To me, since we are an encyclopedia, the idea of showcasing good articles should always be paramount over everything else. Obviously some events will be assessed based on the sheer amount of news coverage they are receiving, but the most important thing is to have a good encyclopedic article to accompany what is happening in the news. So, in that sense, I am not opposed to posting about Jamaica's elections and the interest that it would spur as a result, but I think we should exercise some discretion in which one of these elections we should post, even if the reason for it is to generate reader interest. For one, I am a big fan of science articles, and these articles are always very underrepresented - partly because almost nothing in the scientific world (save for maybe the Nobel Prize) is considered ITN/R worthy. Colipon+(Talk) 22:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What snobbery from some users on here. ITN/R ensures a "lock" for elections in all sovereign nations. We are an encyclopedia - that does mean we pick and choose which country is important or not, which nation is significant or not, or which people's votes are worthy or not. We cover the world for the target of giving people information - heck, how many users even knew where Kiribati was? I am wholly AGAINST all attempts to restrict the coverage of election results on ITN. Let's draw this discussion to a close - there should be no restriction. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Why should we not follow how the rest of the world treats elections? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • We are not a newspaper. Or a periodical. Or a news ticker. ITN is a very little and weird place in the project, a sort of....debating club-meets-Twitter feed. There is a group of editors who believe that the Wiki project needs to be inclusive and expansive - I am one of those editors. If there's an election in Canada and Kiribati on the same day, those two exercises in democracy are identical to me. One housewife in Toronto and a mother in...the...capital island...thingy...are doing the same task. It is not up to us to rule that one vote is worth more than another, or that one country is more credible than another. Editors who wish to curtail ITN or ITN/C need to prove that they're not doing it for the wrong reasons - is it to make their lives easier? Is it to make Wikipedia less "world aware"? The world's mainstream media might treat small countries with contempts, but we sure as Hell don't. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • That is just pointless moralizing. Inclusivity does not imply the indiscriminate inclusion based on a standard that is set without community consensus. We make judgments all the time on the importance of all other news events at ITN/C, why should political elections be any different? This is not to make a slight on the importance of Pacific island states, it is merely a universalization of standards across all subject areas. Currently, ITN/R is heavily balanced in favour of political elections. Politics is the only subject area that I can see where we have this indiscriminate standard. In 'sports', we have to make a cut-off between what is important and ITN-worthy and what is not, the same as in 'science', 'awards', etc. Let's assume that 160/190 countries in the world are democracies, and that the average time between elections is 4 years. This averages out to 40 postings a year, which means almost a post every week. You add that to other 'head of state' changes, 'succession', etc., and you will have a politics-related post roughly every five days. By my rough estimate, this means we have more politics-related ITN/R's than we do for the rest of the subjects combined, counted on an annual basis. It seems that ITN is sometimes an election ticker and not a showcase of articles that it was meant to be. Colipon+(Talk) 02:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • But that one post a week would be it. Very few other national political events would qualify, and it would all be very predictable. No argument possible. It sounds like a very wise approach. If we allow debate for every election, those for "medium" importance countries could be posted at one time and then not be posted next time round, purely on the whim of whatever particular cohort of editors were paying attention at the time. Such inconsistency would not be acceptable to me. Post 'em all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I understand your argument completely, it is impossible to draw a 'line' that everyone can agree on. But that doesn't change two things. 1) There was never a community consensus to "post them all" in the first place. And 2) the "whim of whatever particular cohort of editors" is a problem present with every other subject area, why are we making an exception for political elections alone? Colipon+(Talk) 02:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
              • 1. Fair point. Let's work on it now. 2. Because we can? It's a situation where it would be a nice simple rule. Let's reduce argument. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) I agree. We make judgements on notability all the time, on ITN and in mainspace - whether it be whether an topic deserves an article what should be in it (e.g. our policy on undue emphasis). To rank e.g. India in the same breath as a country of a few tens of thousands is the kind of disproportionate distortion we would be highly dubious of in mainspace. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record, I am not opposed, per se, to such elections being ITN/R items. I think they should qualify if the quality of the article is sufficient to appear on the main page. While it doesn't have to be perfect, article quality should be a stronger prerequisite for ITN/R items. Just because its on the list and has a bluelink doesn't mean it should be automatically passed. ITN/R is meant to stop the debate over the appropriateness of the subject, but we should still have a hearty debate over the quality of the article. If the article sucks, it shouldn't be on the main page even if it is on ITN/R. --Jayron32 02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the absurdities in ITN is that we often have debates about events which receive widespread media coverage and of much greater significance (such as the William-Kate Royal Wedding, or the firing of Joe Paterno), and we tend to reject a lot of postings purely based on it being 'US-centric.' But you look at any of these articles that we've debated over, or even any of the Did-You-Know articles on the Main Page, and you will notice that the least notable articles we have ever posted are about the elections of minor Pacific Island states, at least based on the criteria of 1) the number of people it affects, 2) the amount of influence it has on the subject area, and 3) academic or media interest. When you juxtaposition a Tuvalu parliamentary election to the firing of Joe Paterno, for example, the comparison is absurd. Those supporting a post for the latter will legitimately complain that the latter dwarves the former in significance by several orders of magnitude, not to mention that the latter is just a much better encyclopedic article. Thus, we must set a list of reasonable criteria, not only for election-related postings, but for postings in general, because as of now it seems the decisions to post items is rather arbitrary. Colipon+(Talk) 03:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the Paterno story being more encyclopaedic. Newsworthy it may have been, but it boiled down to a sport and sex story relevant to just one country, something traditional encyclopaedias would have had far fewer of than formal election details. But let's not re-open that international can of worms. The problem is that postings are not arbitrary. Having fixed criteria would be arbitrary, and I personally think it's the right way to go with elections. It has to be all, or none, or somewhere in between. If it's the latter, where? Only one editor has made a suggestion - the G20 nations. Does that work for everybody? I doubt it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer 'none' over 'all', then, if we can't ever agree on a good 'in between' solution. Colipon+(Talk) 04:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
But "none" won't become the policy. We will post this year's American Presidential election. So... ? HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original purpose of ITN/R was so that events which occur on regular intervals don't have to be nominated every time they happen if their notability is so well-established that editors will very likely reach a consensus to post that article every time. Something like the US presidential election is one of these events. It would be nominated every time it happens, regardless of the extenuating circumstances, so we may as well put it under ITN/R so we can save the redundant discussions. Going by this rationale, we can then clearly see why the World Cup Finals or the discovery of a new periodic table element is in ITN/R. Such a rationale falls apart entirely when it comes to the elections of small countries. How likely is it that an election of, say, Tuvalu or Antigua and Barbuda, will be nominated, if ITN/R did not exist? And how likely is it that all editors will agree on posting it? Close to none. Colipon+(Talk) 04:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The "R" stands for "Recurring", not "Regular". Most countries' elections are not held on dates as predictable and regular as the USA's, but they certainly recur. As for which ones are important enough, well... HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we can seriously say that the mayor of London (or New York, or another major world city) is less important than the leader of some Pacific island. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose restricting what elections are posted. I started the below discussion to try and establish one, but I'm generally opposed to it. I only hear about elections in Africa or elsewhere because of WP: it sure as hell isn't on Google. Most countries do it every 4 or 5 years, so it's not like there is a flood of elections to wade through. ITN posts questionable shit all the time, JoePa, a soccer pageant in Japan, death of XYZ favourite athlete/celebrity/politician, Steve (bow before me iPhone user) Jobs, all of which are frankly less meaningful than an expression of Democracy. Someone didn't like a Pacific island so now we're here. Sad. So in short: Very strong support posting every election which determines head of state as long as there is a quality article to go with it.--76.18.43.253 (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
for the record ITN is NOT about "showcasing" articles, thats what DYK is for. ITN for, as the name explicitly says, whats in the news. Bearing in myind pobv/globalize issues otherwise the vast majority of stuff woulkdnt get on and this would just be a mainstream media outlet.Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What countries get in

So then the question is who makes the cut? Is democracy in Seychelles or Maldives or Cape Verde less significant because of the population? What about large countries with smaller populations like Canada or Australia? Tiny countries with a high population like Singapore? Countries with rigged elections like China and Iran? I would like this subsection to be used to explore the criteria for inclusion. If we can reach a consensus, then great, if not, the whole issue ought to die. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Population density?
  • Freedom of the electoral process?
  • International recognition of the state?
List of sovereign states ought to be used for this
  • Coverage in international media?
  • English speaking countries?
Only countries (regardless of size) where English is an official language should be considered, as well as commonwealth countries. All others should be on the language specific wikipedia for their official language. This is the English Wikipedia, which is the place people from qualifying countries would go for information. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add more


  • My suggestion, top of the head stuff. If we have to include only "notable countries", then I would assume ITN had to include, almost without question, elections involving the European Union,. the United Kingdom, and all European nations, all African countries, almost all Asian nations, almost all Oceania countries, all South American countries, all North American countries, and *no* Caribbean countries. The countries I would ask be involved in discussion are: the smallest Asian nations (Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives etc.), the smallest Pacific countries (those island nations on either side of the International Date Line), and the whole Caribbean. That would be a good starting point for discussion. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So should we maintain a list of elections to post, or criteria for inclusion? If the former, I'll port the list of sovereign states over as a table and we can work through it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

G20 Suggestion

My G20 suggestion is imperfect, I will concede fully. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. I challenge the assumption that all elections are worthy news and/or encyclopedic, sometimes even in the country in which it has taken place. Again, it is my belief that ITN revolves around this principle: a news item should only be ITN/R if it is likely to be nominated at every occurrence, and it can be reasonably expected that editors will agree to its posting every time. This should be the ideal "ITNR Test". Generally, those items that pass this 'ITNR' test will also automatically pass the notability test - they are often top stories or front page news on global newspapers. All other news items should be nominated and screened via ITN/C.

So, to give a few examples of which elections (and other political events) which would clearly pass 'the ITNR test':

  • US Presidential (and "midterm") elections
  • China Communist Party Congresses (Gen. Sec'y, Premier)
  • Brazil presidential elections
  • Russia presidential elections
  • India legislative elections (PM)
  • European Parliament elections
  • UK legislative elections (PM)
  • German legislative elections (Chancellor)
  • Italy legislative elections (PM)
  • Canadian legislative elections (PM)
  • French presidential and legislative elections (President, PM)
  • Mexican presidential elections
  • Japan legislative elections (PM)
  • Australia legislative elections (PM)
  • Death and selection of popes
  • Death and accession of major monarchs (UK, Saudi Arabia)

Head of State changes are not always notable, and do not always clearly pass the "ITNR test". For example, the appointment of a ceremonial figurehead for President in Italy, India or Germany is generally not even considered a significant event in their home countries. Similarly, changes to viceregal representatives that act on behalf of the Crown in Commonwealth countries is also not always notable (and will rarely be front page news outside the country in question).

Those who accuse lists like this one of 'exclusivity', please rethink. The idea is not to exclude elections, but rather to treat them on a case-by-case basis much like everything else nominated by ITNR. So let's say there is a pivotal election in Trinidad and Tobago, it can definitely be nominated and will likely be approved if a) the election itself produced some sort of newsworthy effect internationally or had great impact or b) the article in question is very well written. Colipon+(Talk) 05:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to add on to the list. This is a fluid list. Power dynamics shift over time. There are a lot of 'in between' cases that can be nominated in ITN/R instead of ITN/C, such as Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, South Korea, Argentina, South Africa, even "hotspots" like Israel, Palestine (Gaza Strip), Iraq, Iran, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Taiwan - perhaps even subnational entities whose politics are particularly noteworthy like Quebec, New York City, London, Wallonia/Flanders. But a positive onus should be placed on these events to prove that they pass the ITNR test, not the other way around. Once these nominations gain consensus at ITNR, we can add them accordingly based on merit. Similarly, they can be removed from ITNR (let's say Italy loses its geopolitical standing due to the euro debt crisis), if the community can reach consensus. Colipon+(Talk) 05:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A good list to start from. It's quite early and I've not had a brew yet, so my amendments here come from a half-awake brain! I would add;
  • Spanish legislative election (PM)

And I would amend the last one to "all" monarchs.

doktorb wordsdeeds 05:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking the G20 as a hard and fast list is a pretty good idea. Spain, Israel, Iran, etc, can also be nominated, but will have to pass the notability test and the quality test. G20 countries get a pass on notability. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: Oppose all monarchs unless they have power (IE Saudi Arabia is in, UK is out). Oppose the pope, since he's not elected. The pope will always pass an ITN discussion, and it's not often enough for ITN/R. Oppose EU states on the basis of EU membership. Oppose EU parliament. Support Head of the EC. Oppose legislative elections that don't also determine the head of state (IE Canada and UK in, USA out). I've listed the G20 below with the EU excluded (so it's more of a G19). I think it's a decent list. All other countries can be nominated, but will have to go through the regular process and pass the notability clause, the below get an instant pass on notability. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • South Africa
  • Canada
  • Mexico
  • United States
  • Argentina
  • Brazil
  • China
  • Japan
  • South Korea
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Russia
  • Turkey
  • France
  • Germany
  • Italy
  • United Kingdom
  • Australia

--76.18.43.253 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Oppose legislative elections that don't also determine the head of state (IE Canada and UK in, USA out)." Wrong. –HTD 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Why? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is was Kevin Rudd's position in the Aussie government? –HTD 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The European Parliament elections will be one of the largest pan-continental elections in history when they occur, I suggest their nomination should be one of the first in the ITN/R "hall pass list" doktorb wordsdeeds 06:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where exactly to comment but just want to add my 2 cents- I think that any and all election articles should have a fair run at ITN/C. If a national level article is updated sufficiently, then it should go up. I've found from personal experience that some nations (sorry, can't remember a specific example) are too small and the coverage of the election is so narrow that I cannot add a sufficient enough update. In this case, the election shouldn't go up. This way, we can also make allowances for special circumstances, such as when the first democratic elections occurred in the Maldives. SpencerT♦C 03:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Case in point: Kiribati presidential election, 2012. Although there are several sections, this shouldn't go up until each section has a quality paragraph of well-written and referenced prose. And I'll liberally define a paragraph as three sentences of decent length. As of now, the Kiribati article wouldn't qualify until it can be updated more. If it can't be updated to a point of sufficient length, it should not go up. SpencerT♦C 04:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose all of the above, we are forgetting what WP is, it is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia, this little corner of the home page should be used to help readers find pages they may be looking for following hearing something on the news, but also to foster readers going off and learning something new, posting about elections helps that, and in reply to 76.18.43.253, if they think the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the appointment of a new head of state for the 16 Commonwealth realms will be anything other than very significant and the cause of a huge spike in interest in articles relating to the appointment and succession of a new monarch you are mistaken. Mtking (edits) 08:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Changing the policy on ITN/R does not keep people from learning about new things: they just have to go thru the normal nominating process at ITN/C. And there is always DYK. If we are imposing this artificial standard for elections, then why are we not rigidly pursuing this standard for all other subject areas? It would seem to me that this is a double standard. Colipon+(Talk) 17:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Elections for really small countries can still be on ITNR, only that the articles should be good enough (same is true for the rest of items here). Apparently, the Kiribati one slipped through the cracks... that means while elections for elections in such countries can still be listed here, it's just that sometimes it's impossible to write a good article about it. Any other suggestions of using any arbitrary number or collection of countries (G20? No Venezuela, Thailand, Pakistan, Kenya, Serbia, Ukraine, New Zealand, Israel, etc.?) will do more harm than good. –HTD 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Contrary to what Colipon supposes, all elections that are currently considered worthy for ITNR are newsworthy. The practice of smoothing the path for elections in smaller and developing countries helps ITN to maintain global coverage. And, as has been stated, it is a misunderstanding that we are supposed to restrict ITN only to the very most significant stories. News stories are perfectly valid if, among other things, they are likely to be educational and interesting to readers. --FormerIP (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • There are many other ways to support 'global coverage'. Simply posting which party (or which guy) won an election here and there does nothing for our readers, especially when most of the articles are in very poor condition. Also, I just don't understand, what is it about elections make them inherently valuable to our readers? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about everything, the only topical area that receives such heavy ITN/R coverage is political events like elections. Politics postings in ITN should be held to the same standard as everything else in ITN - judged by notability and quality of article. Otherwise it's a double standard. Colipon+(Talk) 22:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change to the current criteria, as per my reasons in the previous debate. The purpose of ITN is to draw attention to articles on current events that have been sufficiently updated. As long as an editor puts in the effort to update an article sufficiently, I see no problem in posting a current-affairs item that directly affects the lives of an entire nationality. As far as I'm concerned, any specific event notable enough for its own article is notable enough for ITN. In addition, no selective criterion can possibly be proposed without being purely arbitrary and constructed from attributes completely unrelated to the subject (like GDP, as proposed above). Nightw 12:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A line has to drawn somewhere and the G20 may be an arbitrary one but that is always going to be the case, and at least it has the benefits of being clear and unambiguous. ITNR serves to document items with a clear and unambiguous consensus and it is clear that there is a dissatisfaction with with the current listing of very small countries. Therefore it has already lost its legitimacy as an ITNR item and elections (any elections) can legitimately be challenged. Personally I don't want to get involved in pointless debates as to whether the US presidential result is notable enough to post, but that is precisely what could easily happen if the entire section becomes regarded as illegitimate. That is precisely the reasoning behind ITNR in the first place and why it shouldn't be used to get a bye on notability when it would not stand up to the normal standards of scrutiny at ITN/C. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC).
  • Support seems like a sensible line. G20 seems about right - and that means we post the EU elections as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It hardly matters and won't help much Something's been bothering me about this, and it's finally gelled in my slow brain. The G20 nations aren't the problem. If we have no list, elections in these countries get posted with little argument anyway, and those supporting this seem to also be saying that elections in other places can still be nominated and discussed at the time, leading to pretty much the same arguments we have now. So what will we gain? HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Very evidently, the issue is with really small countries' elections being posted when they wouldn't otherwise pass the ITN/C notability. That's it. Colipon+(Talk) 02:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Whenever the elections of pacific island states (not those exclusively, but often is the case) get posted on ITN, there are always debates in the ITN/C page. This is obviously problematic because these postings would otherwise not pass an ITN/C discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 04:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
G20 is incredibly pov because its a body of sanction by the statis quo (west's attempts to gbe more inclusive while still pulling the strings). UN is a better barometre. Pehaps UNSC, but UNHA is better.Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have any final comments on this? It seems to me that this discussion is in danger of fizzling out without any actual conclusions like too many discussions here before it. I'll give it another 24 hours after which it seems appropriate to tag {{uninvolved}} for an admin to make a determination of consensus or lack thereof. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't believe this requires an admin to determine consensus as there's no administrative action to take. I'd suggest any uninvolved editor could make the decision — I'd be happy to do it this time tomorrow if necessary. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite happy with that if everyone else is. It simply seems to me that we need a guillotine to draw a line under the discussion and draw the appropriate conclusions. I may advance it as a general principal if it works OK without too much controversy - many other discussions (AfD etc) already have definite time limits after all. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
For the previous consensus governing this item, see here. Nightw 06:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not close discussion yet

The problem with closing this as 'no consensus' is that the issue with extremely small countries' elections getting posted next to much more notable items will always raise the eyebrows of editors; if not me, then someone else will raise objections - so much that these elections will become events of 'recurring objections' on ITN. To me, this is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed, and we are only stuck on having a hard-and-fast rule on which countries are included and which are not, but many of us agree in principle that elections should be held to the same standard of scrutiny as other ordinary ITN/C candidates.

I would suggest, at this stage, that we invite some totally uninvolved admins or otherwise experienced users to give their take, before closing this debate, to see if there are any fresh perspectives that perhaps we have not considered ourselves. Perhaps an invitation at a noticeboard or the politics workgroup. Colipon+(Talk) 12:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's not weighed in on the merits of the discussion, this does come across as a "it's not the result I want, so don't close it" kind of plea... I'll hold off on making a call on the discussion though if that's agreed by most people. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a set of countries that explicitly excludes these tiny states? How about those which had formerly served at the UNSC? –HTD 01:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_5&oldid=1151049714"