Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 9

Grammar, block block
There is a grammar mistake, "Georgia threatens to block block Russia's bid". Should not be block block. Cheers, Ans e ll  10:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed now. jaco ♫ plane  10:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Chemistry

 * The sentence: "Roger D. Kornberg wins the 2006 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on genetic transcription" does not use correct terminology. The correct phrase should say either gene transcription or DNA transcription. The term genetic transcription is not really used. If you want to be accurate you can also say the molecular basis of eukaryotic transcription but that's a mouthful. Nrets  13:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was thinking that too. That's why I had added "molecular basis". I'm changing it to "gene" instead of "genetic". Oh, I guess it already was changed. Nevermind then! -- Nish kid 64 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube buyout
I think that it should be included; it's not really bias, since it's primarily a business topic. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it will necessarily have major historic impact compared to North Korea's alleged nuke or elections in random countries. On the other hand, it is *pinky to lips* $1.5 BILLION dollars.  --Interiot 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly carries greater international impact and interest than Lesotho's adoption of a new flag.
 * I've asked Sean Black to explain which of the ITN inclusion criteria the Google/YouTube story fails to meet. If he fails to do so, I'll restore the entry (if someone else hasn't already done so).  &mdash;David Levy 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, now we have precedent that we can include midrange buyouts of interweb companies! --Golbez 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We're talking about a $1.65 billion buyout of the world's tenth most visited website by the company behind the world's third most visited website (Google's largest acquisition ever). Clearly, this is internationally significant and interesting.  &mdash;David Levy 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is silly, bigger transactions than this happen every day. The only reason this is on the main page is that it is noteworthy to geeks. I'm removing it. jaco ♫ plane  21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What's silly is that you're ignoring the fact that Google and YouTube are two of world's the top ten most visited websites. These are mainstream companies, so the noteworthiness is hardly limited to "geeks."  How is this acquisition not of international significance (the pertinent ITN inclusion criterion)?  &mdash;David Levy 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We didn't post News Corporation's takeover of Myspace on the main page either. Youtube is a niche geek company, not a "mainstream company". This isn't Microsoft, Ford, Disney, or General Electric we're talking about here. I won't wheel war with you if you decide to revert me, but personally I think that we'd be showing clear systemic bias by posting this on the front page. Cheers, jaco ♫ plane  21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. While similar in some respects, the MySpace purchase was not exactly the same. Aside from the fact that the monetary figure was much lower and the fact that MySpace is less popular than YouTube, the specific circumstances simply weren't as interesting to the general public as those surrounding the YouTube acquisition are.  While many of its properties are household names, News Corporation is not.  It's a multimedia empire with which relatively few people are directly familiar.  Therefore, its buyout of MySpace didn't mean much to most individuals.  Conversely, Google is a name directly associated with the world's third most visited website.  The word "Google" is so pervasive that it's been added to the Oxford English Dictionary as a verb.
 * 2. Even if the two stories are identical, the fact that one wasn't featured doesn't automatically preclude the other. Perhaps a sufficient article update (another ITN inclusion criterion) didn't occur in a timely manner.  Perhaps there were too many other stories for that one to make the cut.  Maybe no one bothered to suggest it.
 * 3. I simply cannot agree that YouTube is "a niche geek company," unless everyone who uses the Internet is a geek. YouTube is one of the most well known websites in existence and a popular culture phenomenon.  Even my parents are familiar with YouTube, and they're two of the least geeky people that I know.  You're correct that Wikipedia is biased toward Internet-related information, but I believe that you're overcompensating here (by excluding some that actually is noteworthy).
 * 4. I'm not interested in wheel warring either. (At the point at which I reverted Sean Black, he was the only person to express strong disapproval of the entry, and his reply to my request for justification was rude and evasive).  If consensus for the item's inclusion develops, it can be restored.  Otherwise, it probably is best to err on the side of exclusion.  &mdash;David Levy 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Many mergers are larger than $1.5billion. For comparison, the $3 billion Adobe/Macromedia merger consumated on Dec 5, 2005  and announced on April 18, 2005  didn't make it.  --Interiot 21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you concentrating purely upon the monetary figure? Neither Adobe nor Macromedia is of interest to nearly as many people as Google or YouTube (two of world's the top ten most visited websites).  &mdash;David Levy 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Websites aren't necessarily that important? Some U.S. prime-time TV shows get bigger audiences than YouTube gets in a month.--Interiot 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're isolating an incomparable statistic. A website's popularity cannot be gauged in the same manner as that of a television series.  It's been reported that 100 million YouTube videos are viewed and 65,000 new ones uploaded per day.  As of late August, the average amount of time spent watching a YouTube video worked out to 44 seconds (when divided among every human on Earth) .  &mdash;David Levy 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting points from both sides; I'd still say stick with it, as it rounds out the spectrum of major events (outside of the fallout [no pun intended] from the Korean scenerio, business is rather dead right now, except for this fairly large buyout). &mdash; Deckill e r 02:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Inheritance of Loss
I don't think this should be on the front page, given that the book's article is scanty and well, I think shifting the focus to the author is merely just trying to shift the onus somewhere else. John Riemann Soong 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "one of the world's most prestigious literary prizes"doesn't qualify for the Main Page of an encyclopedia?! If the book's article is an issue, it could just be de-linked; it didn't actually exist until a short time ago. -Splash - tk 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, so I'm in favor of anything educational at the ITN, like this one. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey John Riemann Soong, an article created today which is being developed is "scanty"? Scanty? I hope you are joking. Moriori 06:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cory Lidle
The death of internationally renowned racing car driver Peter Brock is not considered worthy of ITN but some American baseball player is? The buyout of Youtube by Google is not considered worth of ITN but this is? ITN is becoming increasingly US-centric, and its not a good thing. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the fact that he died that's noteworthy. It's the way he went out, by crashing a plane into a building, in Manhattan. The YouTube thing is discussed above. Grand  master  ka  00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the Peter Brock case immediately came to mind. I was entirely unfamiliar with both men, and I can't comment on their respective levels of fame (international or otherwise).
 * In all fairness, however, there is a major distinction between a racecar driver dying when his racecar crashes and a baseball player dying when his airplane crashes into an apartment building (the latter of which was mistaken by many as a possible terrorist attack). &mdash;David Levy 00:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I readded the Youtube one by the way, and I agree with David Levy, it's the way he passed away. Jaranda wat's sup 00:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does Cory Lidle's death get a mention in ITN when Lennart Meri's death did not? Are baseball players automatically more notable than leaders of entire independent countries, or are Americans automatically more notable than Europeans? J I P | Talk 11:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When they die in a spectacularly public way that is initially thought to be a possible terrorist attack, it is news. Let's not assume bias where none exists please. If you have something to add to the page, add it or suggest it. Gamaliel 14:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that the featured item is October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash, not Cory Lidle. -- 64.229.221.69 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The guy crashed his plane into a building in Manhattan, and everyone thinks it's only because the pilot is American that it's being included? Sheesh. People should look at the actual entry and the comments already made here before flinging wild accusations around. Grand master  ka  23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

World Chess Championship?
I've added a suggestion to feature FIDE World Chess Championship 2006 in ITN. It is a nicely done article, and the match finished less than an hour ago. There is also a free image available! It is also notable because this result ends the 13 year split in the world chess titles. Please see In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. Carcharoth 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Secretary-General elect

 * Ban Ki-moon is appointed to succeed Kofi Annan

Is there any reason why the word "appointed" is used to describe the Secretary General elect? Guettarda 21:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, from Ban Ki-moon: "On October 13, the 192 member General Assembly adopted a resolution appointing Ban as Secretary General." I presume this is where the wording comes from, and that the Secretary General is officially appointed by the Security Council, although that "appointment" stems from a vote of the General Council and recommendation (after quasi-votes) from the Security Council. I'm not sure which one wording would be preferable, but it seems he was technically appointed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

When I added that to the article, I pulled the verb right out of the news article I read earlier today. Feel free to change it to something more appropriate. Gamaliel 00:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Currie Cup
Even though it is something that hasn't happened in the cup history, is it really notable? It's an 8-team competition, which doesn't seem that big, and it's only in South Africa, apparently. Nish kid 64  17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It arguably South Africa's largest domestic competition, with interest from other parts of the world, such as Australiasia, Argentina, British Isles and Europe.-- HamedogTalk|@ 18:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, its no the first draw in the 127 year history, its the first use of extra time!-- HamedogTalk|@ 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! The original wording ("The Currie Cup championship match ends in a draw for the first time in the Cup's 127 year history after extra-time.") was misleading.  I've corrected the entry.  &mdash;David Levy 18:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. I just wasn't sure, so I wanted to have some assurance on the issue. Nish kid  64  18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Its pretty notable imo. As I understand it, the CC is the oldest domestic rugby competition in the world. It has big interest outside SA as well. Cvene64 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think that sports news (after the necessary restriction to those events that have suitable articles and have been updated) should be restricted to the biggest events in each sport and limited to one entry per day. Thus the next day's sports entry replaces the previous day's one. Thus the recent chess news is the biggest news in chess for a long time, while the rugby union news should be limited to the final result of Rugby World Cup. As for the interminable succession of plane crash news and election news and Nobel Prize news, I have no comment, except to say that variety should be the key here. When I see entries like this, I might go and read the Wikipedia article, but often, finding it lacking, I go off and read about them somewhere else. I think that, with a few exceptions, encyclopedic news should be distinguishable from breaking news. Carcharoth 09:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Usally the Currie Cup wouldn't go up on the ITN, but it may be rugby union's oldest competition and extra-time has been used for the first time in its 127 year history. IMO, if rugby should go up, it should be limited to the Rugby World Cup (as you mentioned), the Heineken Cup or Six Nations Championship and the Super 14 or Tri Nations Series. This year I think the 2006 Super 14 final should of gone up because of it's bizarre weather, but in general years, we should just have the Six Nations and the Tri Nations go up aswell as the World Cup when its on. If something notable happens in the S14 or Heineken Cup, we can have that too.-- HamedogTalk|@ 12:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting dates wrong
Please, can whoever puts the dates on the ITN entries (to help editors get the chronological order right) get the dates right!!! :-) There has been a sequences of edits where the chess entry had its dates changed, the pic removed, the date changed back to the correct date (13 October), and then changed back to the incorrect one (12 October), removed from ITN, and then put back. To be clear, the correct date is, and always has been, 13 October, as this is when the event ended. Carcharoth 10:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it has been fixed now. Nish kid  64  14:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ununoctium
How did 'Ununoctium' make it into the main page news section with not a single reference to a news organization reporting on it?? Does it not say 'In the news' as section title?? Awolf002 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Without a reference to a news article on either the Ununoctium article or Portal:Current events, it should be removed under item 1 of In the news section on the Main Page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And no, a press release from http://www.llnl.gov/ does not count. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all over google news now. For example: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1546747,00.html. Gamaliel 23:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, after searching myself, I am restoring. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was fast reaction! As a matter of fact there is a Reuters article on this result, too (I added it to the Science section of current events). But at that point in time this "news item" was on the main page for a while, already. That's what triggered my question, since no news release was referenced in the 'Current news' section and it should not have been there. (And I still think it's not notable enough to be there!) Awolf002 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you are not the only one who has questioned some of the recent entries on ITN. See, , , etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it is notable enough to be there (i.e. it has international significance), but I do see that that is not the point being made. There is a problem with ITN in the sense that even the admins involved have little awareness of (or perhaps pay no attention to) the guidelines for adding entries. This creates confusion as to what the remit of the section is, and ultimately leads to an often arbitrary and inconsistent choice of items. I don't mean to denigrate any of the admins who update the section, they do a decent job, but I think a lot of the problems that crop up from time to time could easily be avoided if they got together and tried to come up with some kind of uniform understanding of what sort of items should be included. My two pence. Badgerpatrol 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is the standard criteria listed on In the news section on the Main Page. The primary problem is criterion #3. Admins do not agree on what exactly is "a story of an international importance, or at least interest." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one problem, but not the only one (although I agree that it is probably the most noticeable). In fact, the criteria for selection are enforced in a completely haphazard way. One other sticking point is criterion #4; there is confusion as to how extensively an article has to be updated in order to qualify for inclusion. Often ITN entries are added when the emboldened article has only a one or two line update, although some admins do not accept this as sufficient and use it as grounds for exclusion. The Booker prize item discussed somewhere above (added earlier this week)did not even have an article at all, let alone an updated article, when it was added, and does not appear to be listed on current events. Its inclusion (at least at the time it was added) indisputably contravened several of the ITN criteria. I actually agree that the item should have gone up, but it doesn't help reduce confusion about what is and isn't eligible when admins completely ignore the rules at their whim. (And to clarify, I'm not picking on this one item or the admin concerned, there are numerous other examples that could be quoted, this is just the first to spring to mind). All the criteria need clarifying for consistency, not just #3 (although the international importance criterion does seem to be the one most often and most egregiously ignored). Badgerpatrol 00:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some criteria that are open to interpretation, but some are pretty clear! #1 and #4 are easy to check, but are also very important, since we all know: WP is no news service. We need to have good coverage in the related article of the ITN item, or we will lose any good standing we have with the "users" of WP for finding valuable background info. Awolf002 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"leftist rival Rafael Correa"
Why does the word "leftist" appear on the front page? It's a propaganda term. --61.214.155.14 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (copied from Portal talk:Current events.) Anon has a point. Can we improve the wording away from "banana tycoon vs. leftist rival"?  Bolivian Unicyclist 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

UNSC election wording
Voting... "remains a stalemate" > "remains at a stalemate"? Bolivian Unicyclist 15:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Solomon Islands story
I'm not sure the wording makes it clear that Manasseh Sogavare is PM of the Solomon Islands. The mention of Australian peacekeepers really confuses things. Does anyone have any ideas about what we should do with this? --Oldak Quill 15:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would mentioning that the PM's office is in Honiara help clarify that Manasseh Sogavare is not the Aussie PM ? --64.229.7.224 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How about mentioning Australian peacekeepers first: "Australian peacekeepers in the Regional Assistance Mission with police in the Solomon Islands (flag pictured) raid the offices of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in connection to an extradition request for Julian Moti."? Does this give too much mention to the Australian police? --Oldak Quill 16:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it appears to put too much emphasis on Australian police. I think the current version is fine as it is. Nish kid  64  16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

redirecting from Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page
I have made Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page a redirect to this page. Conversations there have identical topics to those here, the only difference being that they are less frequent and there is less response. - BanyanTree 16:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Accompanying image
Is it possible to align the image to the story it illustrates? It appears to always sit at top right, and often refers to a story further down. This can be rather confusing, especially if it is an unfamilliar flag, where it could accompany several of the stories. Rcrowdy 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Well, that's why we have (pictured) or something of that nature. I don't see how you can get confused if there is only one picture up, and only one mention of (pictured). Nish kid  64  17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true that from reading the column it becomes apparent to which story the picture relates; it was more the initial impression given when looking at the main page that I was concerned about. Can you see how not aligning the image to the story could cause inappropriate juxtapositions? It is a minor issue, but it is the kind of thing that you wouldn't see in print media. Not that that is a benchmark or anything. Is there a technical difficulty in aligning the image to its story, or has a stylistic descision been made? Rcrowdy 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there was a discussion about this sometime back. People suggested moving down or highlighting the news article with the picture. I guess habit left it the way it is.-- HamedogTalk|@ 13:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox
As discussed on the Firefox talk page, Firefox 2 has not yet been released. -- Schapel 17:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On an official Mozilla server marked as a final build - the main page update is just being screwy I think, in either case, will uncomment it out when it's finally released -- Tawker 18:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that there is a relevant item at Portal:Current events before adding this. I can't find one now. - BanyanTree 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox 2.0
I don't think that the release of Mozilla Firefox 2.0 is important enough to put in the news column. I think it's vandalism.
 * Uh...it's not vandalism, it's just that a new software release really isn't newsworthy. 1ne 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm a vandal :o -- Tawker 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Baseball world series qualifies?
ITN has an obvious American bias... you're trying to tell me that the Baseball World Series qualifies? Despite the misnomer "world" in the title this is of little if any international significance. You chuck the Miss Universe winner off ITN for not being notable enough? You get rid of Peter Brock's death because it has little international impact? Any then you reckon including an American baseball tournament is okay? -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  07:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a whole list of stuff like that PageantUpdater. Recently I think of the NRL Grand Final and the AFL Grand Final not being included and the 2006 Currie Cup was only on for about a day. I don't think anybody outside of Nth. America or Japan really cares about this. In saying that, it probably is notable.-- HamedogTalk|@ 10:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bah. This discussion is silly parochialism. The NRL and AFL grand finals are each of great relevance to about half the states of Australia, and are not televised or, indeed, of much interest to anyone outside those states. The World Series may feature American teams, but it is televised to a sizable global audience, including, I might note, Australia. I'm a fan of none of the sports, but it's pretty clear to me that they're hardly comparable. Rebecca 10:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The AFL Grand Final has the largest attendance for any finals game this year. I don't care about AFL or NRL, I am just making a point. I think the Currie Cup being taken down is ridiculous American bias.-- HamedogTalk|@ 10:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been agreed upon that the highest championship in any major professional sport is important enough to be mentioned in ITN. The World Series championship arguably is the top championship in professional baseball.  (The World Baseball Classic is another candidate, but it lacks the history and popularity.)
 * The Currie Cup is not the highest rugby union championship, nor is the NRL Grand Final the highest rugby league championship. This doesn't automatically preclude their presence in ITN, but they do fail to qualify under that particular standard.
 * If I'm not mistaken, the AFL Grand Final is the highest championship in Australian rules football (given the fact that Australia doesn't compete in the Australian Football International Cup). Did anyone perform the necessary article authorship/update and submit a blurb for inclusion in ITN?  &mdash;David Levy 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this line of reasoning, if I understand you correctly. As a generalisation, it is obviously skewed towards parochial sports without international competitions. The World Series of baseball is (essentially) a domestic competition, and the appropriate basis for comparison therefore is to other domestic competitions. The fact that (arguably, I know very little about the subject) the highest global championship is also (in essence, I know the Canadians have a few teams as well) the US domestic championship is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that the global strength of baseball is not yet sufficient to have a meaningful international tournament. With respect, this inclusion criteria (if it is meant to be exclusive) is going to lead to an overpopulation of, for example, North American items and a relative underpopulation of more globally popular sports. Having said that, I think that sports items on ITN have been handled reasonably well of late in general. Badgerpatrol 04:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To qualify for ITN inclusion, a sport must be of international interest. Professional baseball is, and people in numerous countries view its World Series.  (Of course, even popularity among Americans and Canadians would satisfy the  "international" criterion.)
 * It's important to note that the phrase "international interest" implies an inherent level of notability (hence my reference to "major professional sport[s]"). If a sport isn't notable, its highest competition isn't notable (regardless of how many countries compete or view).  In other words, you needn't worry about seeing obscure sporting events featured.
 * As noted above, this standard calls for the potential inclusion of the AFL Grand Final (the highest championship in Australian rules football). Like baseball, this is a sport played in many countries other than the one in which it originated, but not at the same level.
 * Lastly, as also noted above, a sporting event can qualify for inclusion even if it isn't the highest championship of its sport. Some sports (such as association football) have several internationally notable championships.  &mdash;David Levy 05:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I should have read your comment more carefully. So long as the criterion is applied non-exclusively, there shouldn't be any problems. (I'm not sure if Aussie rules is a great comparison- I'm not sure, but I think that Australia is the only country with a fully professional league. This is not the case with, for example, baseball). As an aside, the whole "international interest" criterion is a fudge and needs to be reworded or removed- it's virtually meaningless as it is. Badgerpatrol 05:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Both the NRL and AFL grand finals are televised in New Zealand which is not a state of Australia. The AFL isn't of much interest and the NRL is of some interest (much more when the Warriors are in) but not that much however you're quite wrong to say they're not televised... To be hoenst I think these are base examples though. I would suggest that there is greater interest in the FA Cup or the Premier League throughout the world then in the World Series yet the results of neither of these are ever mentioned. Nil Einne 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While neither is the highest championship in association football, it's reasonable to assert that they're notable enough for ITN inclusion. Did anyone author/update an appropriate article and submit it for inclusion?  If so, what was the outcome of that discussion?  &mdash;David Levy 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and I should add I believe the NRL grand final is televised in the UK as well... Nil Einne 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget Latin America. Many Latin Americans follow baseball. --64.229.229.185 14:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hamedog, Currie Cup was up for a few days before someone removed it. I had contested its presence in ITN because I didn't believe it was that noteworthy, but I was proven otherwise.


 * Nonetheless, you may think that adding the 2006 World Series to ITN appears to display American-oriented bias, but you are completely wrong. Baseball is an international game, of international importance, more so than NRL or AFL. Just take a look at the nationalities of players playing in the World Series or in MLB! If you want to add results of the FA cup or the Premier League championships, be my guest. Also, stop saying ITN is too American-centric. Take a look at the current ITN. China? Hong Kong? Nicaragua? Panama? Argentina? Afghanistan? Nish kid  64  18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not what's on the ITN page. It's what is suggested for the ITN page. Many suggestions which are centred on American news are rejected or ignored. For example: George Bush signs the US-Mexico border bill, US declares space intrest, Military Commissions act of 2006, and especially the US population reaches 300 million. --TheTall One 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But those suggestions are not really notable at all. Military Commissions Act of 2006? That's more domestic, than international in my opinion. Do we have ITN suggestions for other country's military plans (besides North Korea)? I do believe that the US-Mexico border bill is of significance, but the fact that there is no article that provides an in depth look at the issue prevents it from being added to ITN at the moment. Nish kid  64  23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't the baseball world championship the highest ranked baseball event?-- HamedogTalk|@ 06:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The World Baseball Classic compares to the World Series in much the same way that the Australian Football International Cup would compare to the AFL Grand Final if Australia were to begin competing in the former. &mdash;David Levy 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A list of qualifying sports events

 * I dont think we should just say that anything that is the pinnacle of a sport should automatically be on the list, as I cant say that the NRL really deserves a place on the ITN.-Narrasawa 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we create and stick to a list?

Basketball
 * NBA
 * World Championship

Baseball
 * World Series
 * World Baseball Classic

Cricket
 * ICC World Cup
 * The Ashes
 * ICC Champions Trophy

American Football
 * The Superbowl

Football (Soccer)
 * FIFA World Cup
 * EUFA Champions League
 * Various European Leagues (England, Spain, Germany and Italy)

Golf
 * US Masters
 * US Open
 * PGA Tour Winner

Netball
 * World Cup

Rugby League
 * World Cup
 * Tri-Nations

Rugby Union
 * World Cup
 * 6 Nations
 * Tri Nations (Bledisloe Cup)
 * Heineken Cup

Rugby Sevens
 * World Cup
 * World Circut

Ice Hockey
 * Stanley Cup

Other
 * Olympics
 * Commonwealth Games

Any other suggestions for this list?-- HamedogTalk|@ 07:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the list narrowed to sporting events which involve a large proportion of the nations of the world (so that for example Baseball, American Football, and Aussie Rules would not qualify), and that have significant popular appeal around the world (so the World Tiddlywinks Championship doesn't qualify, even if every nation in the world sends a team to it). The Summer and Winter Olympics qualify, the Football (soccer) World Cup, maybe the Commonwealth Games. Not a lot else.- gadfium 07:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about we limit it to international competitions. Then we would get:

Basketball
 * World Championship

Baseball
 * World Baseball Classic

Cricket
 * ICC World Cup
 * ICC Champions Trophy

Football (Soccer)
 * FIFA World Cup
 * FIFA Club Championship

Golf
 * PGA Tour Winner

Netball
 * World Cup

Rugby League
 * World Cup

Rugby Union
 * World Cup
 * 6 Nations (Only Europe)

Rugby Sevens
 * World Cup

Ice Hockey
 * Stanley Cup (US/CANADA)

Other
 * Olympics
 * Commonwealth Games

Comments?-- HamedogTalk|@ 08:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to sound like a troll, but would that mean that the 2006 Micronesian Games woauld have qualified to be in ITN?- gadfium 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't make policy, so I have no idea.-- HamedogTalk|@ 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but how can you possibly put the Rugby League World Cup in there? The last tournament actually incurred a massive finacial loss, so how can such a competition be notable enough to be in here?? and it is a silly concept to limit it to just international tournaments, what about Premier League, Super Bowl etc??(Mackai m 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Then replace it with Tri-Nations. See the first list for Super bowl and FA(I am assuming this one) Premier League. This is by no means policy at all, just thoughts.-- HamedogTalk|@ 13:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The World Series and NBA Finals are international competitions. Of course, many sporting events involving teams from a specific nation carry the interest of fans in other nations, so I disagree with this proposed criterion.  &mdash;David Levy 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignore the bottom list then - I have striked it out. The top list maybe receive more support.-- HamedogTalk|@ 13:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How can the Stanley Cup be on the list and not the World Series. Both series may or may not contain a Canadian team. And how can you exlude the Super Bowl, the biggest sporting event in North America -- Coasttocoast 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall guidelines to what qualifies for the list

 * In general, the ITN needs more strict guidlines for sporting events. Some of suggestions are way off from being 'of international importance' and are a general waste of time spent arguing over. This arguement over what sports are internationally important will arise again unless a specific list is made, like the one above.--TheTall One 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the World Chess Championship qualifies as an event for ITN.


 * Having a list of events which qualify to be on ITN is a good idea, but we need an underlying principle to decide which events qualify.


 * In general, I think events have to be international, and preferably intercontinental. This is a slight weakening of my earlier position. Any sporting event which
 * either involves many sports, such as the Commonwealth Games, or is the pinnacle tournament for its sport
 * and involves nations from at least three continents, with the location of matches or tournaments rotating around different countries
 * and garners significant world-wide interest
 * is eligible to be covered (once, for the final result), on ITN.


 * Events which are invariably playoffs between two US cities don't qualify, such as the Super Bowl or the World Series. The Stanley Cup is a regional event, and would not qualify, nor would the All-Africa Games. I would argue that the Rugby Union Tri Nations would not qualify as only involving two continents, and being less prestigious than the Rugby World Cup, but I could be persuaded on this. The Rugby League World Cup would be included, as whether it makes a profit or not is not part of my suggested criteria. The Cricket World Cup qualifies. Golf looks like a tricky one, as the major golfing events look to always be held in the US and Britain. Is there an international golfing championship which isn't just a national championship putting on airs?


 * Any definitive list which is agreed on will need a mechanism for change as new sporting events arise.- gadfium 18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You would have us exclude many of the most popular athletic competitions in the world (including the top championships of several sports) simply because they lack representation from three or more continents.
 * ITN contains reports that are of interest to residents of more than one nation. They needn't directly pertain to events that individually occur in multiple regions of the world.  (If they did, none of the current entries would qualify.)
 * Also, the false claim that the World Series strictly features American teams has grown rather tiresome. A Canadian team won the World Series in 1992 and 1993.  &mdash;David Levy 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I'm suggesting that regional sporting events don't qualify. You can argue that the World Series is not just the US, but you can't argue that it's truly an international event.- gadfium 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I'm suggesting that regional sporting events don't qualify.
 * And I'm disagreeing with this suggestion.
 * You can argue that the World Series is not just the US, but you can't argue that it's truly an international event.
 * Firstly, I respectfully request that you consult a dictionary.
 * Secondly, I was merely correcting your false statement that the World Series is among the "events which are invariably playoffs between two US cities," a point rendered largely moot by your proposed omission of regional competitions. You addressed my closing aside and ignored the main portion of my reply.  &mdash;David Levy 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My reply to your substantive point was that yes, that was exactly what I was suggesting. There used to be a policy, as I recall, that sporting events didn't qualify for ITN at all. An exception was made for the 2004 Olympic Games, and then another for the 2006 Commonwealth games, and it seems to have gone downhill from there. Even when the policy was mostly in force, the big US events seemed to get added. I'm suggesting we look at putting a policy in place with some rationale behind it. You seem to be saying: "But that doesn't allow the big US events".


 * I don't regard a US event as being international just because there was once or twice a Canadian team. There's an old saying about the exception that proves the rule. Even if Canadian teams regularly participate at the highest levels, and the final game is occasionally played in Canada as well as the US, that still makes such an event of only regional (sub-continental) importance. If it was an international event, wouldn't the US team be playing the Canadian team?


 * If we can't agree on a policy for which sports events are allowed on ITN, I suggest we revert to the old policy of having none here.- gadfium 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My reply to your substantive point was that yes, that was exactly what I was suggesting.
 * ...which in no way addressed my point that your proposal arbitrarily contradicts the relevant ITN criterion, thereby excluding sporting events of tremendous international interest.
 * There used to be a policy, as I recall, that sporting events didn't qualify for ITN at all. An exception was made for the 2004 Olympic Games, and then another for the 2006 Commonwealth games, and it seems to have gone downhill from there.
 * That's your opinion. I disagree.
 * Even when the policy was mostly in force, the big US events seemed to get added.
 * Curse those arrogant Americans for contributing articles and listing them for inclusion!
 * Could you please cite a record of this policy? I've only been a Wikipedian since February of last year.
 * ''I'm suggesting we look at putting a policy in place with some rationale behind it.
 * We have a rationale. We're including blurbs regarding sports championships of significant international interest for which new articles have been written or existing articles substantially updated.
 * You seem to be saying: "But that doesn't allow the big US events".
 * I've been waiting for you to allege nationalistic bias on my part. Someone always does.  After all, I am an American, so I couldn't possibly be motivated by anything other than egocentrism, right?
 * Your proposal would exclude popular events from numerous countries. At no point did I state that those of the United States were of greater importance than the others.
 * FYI, I'm not even a sports fan. I've never seen a complete baseball game in my life.  I record the Super Bowl, fast-forward through the game and watch the advertisements.
 * I don't regard a US event as being international just because there was once or twice a Canadian team.
 * 1. The Toronto Blue Jays compete for the right to appear in the World Series every year (as do all of the teams in Major League Baseball).
 * 2. The fact that the event usually occurs in the United States doesn't mean that it's of interest strictly to people in the United States. Major League Baseball includes players from many different nations, and its audience resides in more nations still (with games televised in approximately 75 countries).  The Japanese Wikipedia reported the World Series' outcome on its main page.
 * This, of course, is merely an example; the same is true of other "regional" athletic competitions from around the world.
 * ''Even if Canadian teams regularly participate at the highest levels, and the final game is occasionally played in Canada as well as the US, that still makes such an event of only regional (sub-continental) importance.
 * ...except for the fact that its popularity extends to several other continents (not that this has any bearing on its compliance with the "international" criterion).
 * If it was an international event, wouldn't the US team be playing the Canadian team?
 * No, not necessarily.
 * ''If we can't agree on a policy for which sports events are allowed on ITN, I suggest we revert to the old policy of having none here.
 * There has been general agreement (though inexperienced users often complain when they see a sports entry&mdash;especially one pertaining to a U.S. event&mdash;and don't understand how ITN works and/or what standards are being followed). &mdash;David Levy 23:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Inexperienced users" such as myself have been complaining about such sports entries certainly since I have been involved in Wikipedia. See, for example, Talk:Main_Page/Archive_21. The history of sporting events on ITN doesn't seem to be covered by "common sense".- gadfium 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Do you really wish to back the comments of someone whose argument was based upon the belief that Canada and the USA count as "a single country"?
 * 2. I wasn't referring to the users (including you) who consistently criticize the inclusion of sports entries in general. I was referring to the ones who ascribe nationalistic bias to the inclusion of specific entries pertaining to sports that are popular in one set of countries but not another (without realizing that we frequently include the opposite) or to the exclusion of their favorite sporting events (without realizing that a new/updated article is required).  See, for example, this vitriolic rant by newcomer Huey45.
 * 3. Do you intend to address the remainder of my reply? &mdash;David Levy 01:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think maybe the rest of your reply has gotten lost a little bit in the detail, since I thought I had addressed it.
 * I hadn't meant to accuse you of nationalistic bias. I wasn't aware you were a resident or citizen of the US until you said you were an American.
 * You believe that certain sports belong on ITN because they are popular beyond North America. You also say that you are not a sports fan. I can only guess why you are arguing to have regional events on the front page. Do you believe that more people will be attracted to Wikipedia if a sport they are interested in appears on the front page? Baseball fans seem already well represented in the ranks of Wikipedians. Do you believe that ITN forms a historical record of the important events of the time? I don't believe any sports are that important.
 * For the user who posts a "vitriolic rant" against the appearance of such sporting events, wouldn't it be nice to have a policy we could point to saying which events are considered significant, and why?
 * I can't find any page which says "This is our policy on sports in ITN" because I don't think we've ever had clear guidelines. My impression is that we've always had a bias against having any sporting events on ITN, but this bias has lessened in recent years. I had thought we had a policy, but I was probably wrong.
 * I'm suggesting that we do draft a policy, following on from Hamedog's suggestions. You could argue that my suggested policy is too strict, and suggest alternative criteria, but it seems you are arguing that existing rules, particularly "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest" (or in your words: "ITN contains reports that are of interest to residents of more than one nation") are sufficient. If this is not the thrust of your argument, then I'm not understanding you at all.
 * If we had a better article than we do on 2006 Micronesian Games, which were undoubtedly of interest to the residents of more than one nation, should it have appeared on ITN? I believe not, because those games were purely of regional interest.
 * What other points have I not addressed?- gadfium 01:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't meant to accuse you of nationalistic bias. I wasn't aware you were a resident or citizen of the US until you said you were an American.
 * In that case, I'm puzzled as to why you believed that was saying, "but that doesn't allow the big US events." I made no such remark, and I explicitly referenced non-U.S. events that I believe warrant inclusion.
 * You believe that certain sports belong on ITN because they are popular beyond North America.
 * I also believe that certain sports championships belong because they are popular beyond their home continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and South America (and in some cases, merely popular within multiple countries in a particular continent).
 * <font style="color:#00A650;">I can only guess why you are arguing to have regional events on the front page. Do you believe that more people will be attracted to Wikipedia if a sport they are interested in appears on the front page? Baseball fans seem already well represented in the ranks of Wikipedians.
 * I believe that the purpose of ITN is to direct readers to new/updated articles pertaining to topics that are likely to interest and/or impact them. The fact that "baseball fans seem already well represented in the ranks of Wikipedians" is an argument in favor of reporting the World Series' outcome.  Likewise, other sports championships in various countries are popular among many of our readers.
 * <font style="color:#00A650;">Do you believe that ITN forms a historical record of the important events of the time?
 * No, of course not.
 * <font style="color:#00A650;">I don't believe any sports are that important.
 * And that seems to be the crux of your argument. I probably care less about sports than you do, but I don't seek to impose my apathy on our readers (a great many of whom feel differently).
 * <font style="color:#00A650;">For the user who posts a "vitriolic rant" against the appearance of such sporting events, wouldn't it be nice to have a policy we could point to saying which events are considered significant, and why?
 * We can point such individuals to In the news section on the Main Page and/or explain the concepts described therein. We also can cite past discussions.  We don't need instruction creep.
 * <font style="color:#00A650;">I'm suggesting that we do draft a policy, following on from Hamedog's suggestions. You could argue that my suggested policy is too strict, and suggest alternative criteria, but it seems you are arguing that existing rules, particularly "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest" (or in your words: "ITN contains reports that are of interest to residents of more than one nation") are sufficient. If this is not the thrust of your argument, then I'm not understanding you at all.
 * You're understanding me.
 * <font style="color:#00A650;">If we had a better article than we do on 2006 Micronesian Games, which were undoubtedly of interest to the residents of more than one nation, should it have appeared on ITN? I believe not, because those games were purely of regional interest.
 * I lack sufficient familiarity with the Micronesian Games to judge. Being "of interest to the residents of more than one nation" is a prerequisite for consideration, not an automatic qualifier.  An event's notability (or lack thereof) can be assessed via discussion (with knowledgeable individuals citing evidence).
 * <font style="color:#00A650;">What other points have I not addressed?
 * I believe that you've covered them now. Thank you.  &mdash;David Levy 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just reread your reply to Badgerpatrol above, where you address this issue. It seems very subjective to me, but I understand your argument on this. You will continue to have this argument brought up anew by different editors with each regional sports event on ITN.- gadfium 02:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Such is typical around here. &mdash;David Levy 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply make how much the article was updated and the quality of the article be the final arbiter? This is not a news ticker, it is a gateway to the encyclopedia through recent events. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any item on ITN must have an updated article of reasonable quality. I think everyone is agreed that we don't want minor sporting events here, no matter how up to date or high quality the articles are. The question is, how do you decide what is a sufficiently major sporting event?- gadfium 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How do we decide whether any event is sufficiently notable? We use common sense.  As noted above, the highest championship of any major sport (and you and I both know which sports should be deemed "major") generally qualifies, and any championship with a large international audience can be considered.  We needn't codify a new policy to help us determine that the AFL Grand Final is more worthy of inclusion than the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest.
 * Of course, the existence of a new/updated article is a prerequisite, and this tends to be the most difficult aspect for people to understand. &mdash;David Levy 23:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think in fairness that it is perhaps hard for people to understand because that criterion (like some others) is often completely ignored (or, charitably, inconsistently applied) by the admins who take responsibility for updating ITN- and not just for sports events. I agree however that in recent months the pragamatic and perhaps more liberal approach to including sporting events on ITN has been (IMHO) satisfactory. To clarify with regard to the World Series- I think what David is trying to say is not that it is an international event (it is a US domestic tournament with a small number of foreign teams included, which is fairly common in various sporting competitions) but rather it it is an event of international interest (ie the results are followed in Canada, Cuba, Japan, Venezuela etc). Badgerpatrol 02:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="color:#00A650;">I think in fairness that it is perhaps hard for people to understand because that criterion (like some others) is often completely ignored (or, charitably, inconsistently applied) by the admins who take responsibility for updating ITN- and not just for sports events.
 * Indeed, that is a major part of the problem, and I was including admins when I noted that "this tends to be the most difficult aspect for people to understand."
 * <font style="color:#00A650;">To clarify with regard to the World Series- I think what David is trying to say is not that it is an international event (it is a US domestic tournament with a small number of foreign teams included, which is fairly common in various sporting competitions) but rather it it is an event of international interest (ie the results are followed in Canada, Cuba, Japan, Venezuela etc).
 * Well, I was addressing two separate statements. It's been repeatedly claimed (both here and at Talk:Main Page) that only American teams compete in the World Series.  This is not true, so it technically is an "international" competition (meaning that teams from more than one nation participate).  Having said that, I certainly wouldn't argue that the competition is "international" on remotely the same level as association football's World Cup (for example).  As you wrote, my main point is that the interest is international.  &mdash;David Levy 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The World Series is baseball's largest event, or possibly second behind the World Baseball Classic, so it should be included. My only gripe with the highest competition of that sport is that events such as the Cricket World Cup, Rugby World Cup and FIFA World Cup are only going to appear every 4 (four) years while events like the NBA, World Series, Stanley Cup and Superbowl are going to appear every year. While these are their respective sports highest honour, Cricket and Football (soccer) an more popular than any of the American sports (Yes, cricket is more popular - India's most popular sport (Population = 1 Billion +)) yet will get 75% less main page time than other sports, giving an image of US Bias. Perhaps, as a comprimise, we have the largest sporting event for that year, rather than the sports highest honour. Again this will create problems as people will argue is the EUFA Champions League Soccer's highest event for next year or other regions counter parts (or even the FIFA Club Championship). I can see a clash of heads arising for Rugby union with the age old North vs South debate surely to arise which competition should go up (Super 14/Tri Nations vs Heinekin Cup/Six Nations). Obviously this needs to be sorted out to avoid problems like this in future.-- HamedogTalk|@ 13:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "major sport's highest championship" standard merely means that such events usually qualify (if the other inclusion criteria are met), not that others automatically fail to qualify. We can and do include entries regarding major annual sports championships that aren't the highest in their respective sports.  The problem often is that no one bothers to create/update the appropriate articles and submit them for inclusion.  &mdash;David Levy 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you are suggesting that more sports need to appear on the Main Page? I think that many editors will oppose this. So what are the major sports? Is it the largest sport in a country or the large sport globally? One of high importance in one country or a sport which is quite popular around the world? Because if it is of international importance, we need to define which sports make the cut and which don't. At the moment, these are the sports: Baseball, Basketball, Cricket, Golf, Ice Hockey, Track and Field, American Football, Ass. Football, Rugby union, Rugby league and possibly netball. Should events be limited to this or should we include other events such as the F1, WRC, surfing and swimming?-- HamedogTalk|@ 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that more sports need to appear on the main page, but more theoretically could if more article creations/updates were to occur. In practice, we probably will continue along at roughly the present frequency.
 * Any sport with large international (not necessarily global) popularity can be considered for inclusion. Specific events that seem borderline can be discussed on an individual basis (just as we do with any subject).
 * Off the top of my head, in addition to the sports that you mentioned, the AFL Grand Final certainly seems notable enough, and we do report the outcomes of the World Chess Championship and the top tennis tournaments. &mdash;David Levy 15:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay but there should still be some sort of guideline or base competition that we can use and say events which are above this are notable enough to hit the main page. Sort of like of New York City is used as a base city with a rating of 100 for they decide which city is the most expensive to live in.

On the other hand we could also have it so that the articles need to be of a certain standard to go up.-- HamedogTalk|@ 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New list
I'm sure we can have one or two sports results on ITN per week and that would allow us to have at least 50 per year (certainly enough to accomodate all the major tournaments. Possibly in the major world sports that would mean the winner of the largest inter-nation tournament and the largest inter-club tournament.

So here's my view on the issue (to clear up any bias, I am Australian)

American Football


 * Superbowl (club)

Basketball


 * World Championship (nation)
 * NBA winner (club)

Baseball


 * World Championship?? (nation)
 * World Series (club)

Commonwealth Games

Cricket


 * World Cup (nation)
 * Champions Trophy (nation) ?
 * The Ashes (nation)

Cycling


 * Tour de France (individual)

Football


 * FIFA World Cup (nation)
 * FIFA Club Championship (club) ?
 * UEFA Champions League (club)
 * European Football Leagues - Only English, Spanish & Italian (club) (Football gets so many because it is by far the largest world sport)

Golf


 * All majors (or maybe only US Masters & British Open) (player)
 * Ryder Cup (USA vs Europe)

Ice Hockey


 * Stanley Cup (club) ?

Motorsport


 * F1 World Champion (driver + constructor)

Netball


 * World Championship (nation)

Olympic Games


 * Summer (nation)
 * Winter (nation)

Rugby League


 * Nothing in my opinion, but if required the Tri-Nations (nation)

Rugby Union


 * World Cup (nation)
 * 6 Nations (nation)
 * Tri Nations (nation)

Rugby Sevens
 * World Cup (nation)

Tennis


 * Australian Open (individual)
 * Wimbledon (individual)
 * French Open (individual)
 * US Open (individual)

Excluded from this list is the AFL grand final which is possibly the most highly attended sporting final in the world but doesnt have any following outside of Australia. And on the list there is only one women's sport plus the combined tennis, olympics and c'wlth games. Other than that, looking through the List of sports attendance figures article, it seems to cover all the major ones. --AMorris (talk)  &#x25CF;  (contribs)  09:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any possibility of splitting ITN to In The News / In The Sports? If not, we definitely should get beck to banning sports altogether, including the Olympics, if there is nothing actually newsworthy (Mauritania wins 27 gold medals, the Red Sox win for ten times in a row, the ad minute during the Superbowl goes above 1 billion dollar...) The results as such are not news.--SidiLemine 12:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An section for sports news would be great. However this may damage the credibility of Wikipedia. I can imagine some American newspaper like "Wikipedia thinks that the AFL Grand Final (insert any sport not widely played in America here) is world news material"-- HamedogTalk|@ 13:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is basically the source of the problem. The fact that the large majority of Wikipedia readers and editors are American leads to the problem of bias towards American sports. It's like saying a non-American newspaper saying "Wikipedia thinks that the Stanly Cup is world news material." Before it was in ITN I had only heard of it a few times. You can't say there isn't a bias to America on ITN and possibly other areas of Wikipedia, the Internet, life and news in general. For example, I wish to find news on Africa and Europe. I go on BBC (bbc.co.uk), CBS (cbsnews.com) and Fox News (foxnews.com). I go to the 'World' section on all of them. On the BBC, there is a dedicated section to Africa and Europe, with the same, equal graphics and visible news coverage compared with the UK and News home page. On Fox, there is a section, however it is clear that less effort has been put into the pages, still displaying news 2 or 3 days old. On CBS, all of the International affairs has been forced into one page. Searching 'Africa' on CBS results in 16 articles made in the past 2 months, including 2 on the Sarhara Desert and its affect on hurricanes, 2 on Madonna's adoption, 2 on oil. Only 4 of 16 articles on CBS within the past 2 months on the subject of Africa have any intrest soely on Africa affairs and not on oil and how sand is causing hurricanes.
 * Back to topic, maybe if it were better to have a definite blacklist rather than a whitelist, this will help filter out inital proposals for weak subjects to put on ITN. It will be fast to come up with and could be active within a few days. It will help take a step towards solding the problem. --TheTall One 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the first thing is to make sure that articles exist and that someone has updated them. ANd then, as nearly all these events repeat at regular intervals, draw up a calendar of suitable events that can be featured at ITN (a bit like the selected anniversaries page). Adjust the calendar to give a suitable spread across the world and across the year, and then only add other sports events if discussion has taken place. Carcharoth 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The only "bias" pertains to the articles that are written. Obviously, people are more likely to write about sporting events popular in their own countries than about sporting events popular elsewhere.  If no one creates or updates an article to reflect the outcome of a particular sporting event, it can't qualify for ITN.
 * From time to time, someone complains that a particular event's outcome hasn't been reported (often alleging that the "stupid"/"ignorant"/"arrogant" Americans have deliberately suppressed this information). If the event truly is of international interest, it typically turns out that no one has contributed a substantial amount of relevant content to the encyclopedia.
 * These same individuals often point out that events such as the Super Bowl and the World Series were covered, ignoring the fact that editors took the time to write comprehensive articles such as Super Bowl XL and 2006 World Series. Should they be penalized because no one bothered to do the same for other events?


 * 2. A "definite blacklist" is out of the question. Any sporting event can be internationally notable if something internationally notable takes place.  There's no way to predict when and where this will occur.  &mdash;David Levy 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't have separate sections for political news, scientific news, financial news, et cetera. Why should we have a separate section for sports news?  &mdash;David Levy 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. We don't have automatic inclusion of the financial results, scientific breakthrough, and every politic event. We shouldn't give the results of sporting events (even major ones) without a good reason. We surely give the nobels and the G8 presidentials, and that amounts to the Olympics and soccer world cup. Having any more on an automatic basis isn't healthy.--SidiLemine 09:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the Rugby World Cup?-- HamedogTalk|@ 10:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal view is that no-one should expect anything to appear in ITN. It should merely be a selection of 4 or 5 newsworthy events that have well-written, updated articles. It shouldn't attempt to be the 4 or 5 most newsworthy events, as this will vary depending on where you live in the world, and the international news shouldn't necessarily dominate. Ideally, those selecting items for ITN should have 10-20 well-written, newsworthy items to choose from, and 4-5 should be selected and remain up for at least half a day or a day. The 4-5 to be selected should be done on the basis of diversity and interest, ranging across subjects from human interest, to international relationships, to elections, to sports, to science, even to the ocassional local-interest event that might be of interest to a wider audience, etc. One vital criterion is that there should not be an imbalance of one particular subject area, or one particular country. In other words, diversity and interest should be the key, not newsworthiness, though all the stories should be newsworthy. Does that make sense? Carcharoth 11:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot. but still, I'd like something a little more definite, as half the Main Page talk is always about pro USA bias, and that's almos always because of sports. All you said is already admitted by almost everybody, but you can't prevent people from wanting some kind of order and clarity through the process.--82.151.86.229 11:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Runoff elections on ITN
I noticed that someone put up two entries for runoff elections that are happening today, just basically saying "X" faces "Y" in a run off for the presidency of "Z". Is this something that should be up there now? I think we should wait until some sort of final results are in. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My question is how can it qualify under item 4 of In the news section on the Main Page when the updated part may only consist of one or two lines? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you feel ready to respond to my argument, I will be pleased to address your points. I am hopeful that you will attempt to be more responsive and less procedural-minded in your stance. El_C 14:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, but I also disagree about how it is of international importance without the results. What I do not want ITN to become like an announcement board for every single election, large or small, that is out there. As you have probably noticed there as been numerous disagreements about what type of sporting events should be ITN. With those discussions, there has been some sort of consensus that they at least should not be listed when the event is occurring, only when the final result is known. But maybe because these elections for the leaders of the two countries, they might be worth keeping. But I am not sure if the election is in itself is internationally significant without some sort of major very recent news update, particularly the results. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget Kosovo. But I agree with Zzyzx11. Let's wait till we have the final results before we add them to ITN. Are the polls still open? If so, showing the picture of one candidate but not the other seems somewhat inappropriate. And please make sure the Serbian referendum page is not a stub before adding to ITN. Thanks. --64.229.225.113 16:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Always ask yourself how a run-off eletion would be covered on ITN if it was to take place in and involved the leadership of one of the Axis of Unfluence countries (United States of Americanada, United Queendom, or Uncommonwealth of Australia), and go from there. El_C 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, disregarding your inflammatory language regarding anglo-saxon countries, I agree with El C's comment that a run-off in the Brazilian presidential election is definitely worthy of being mentioned on ITN. I think your comment regarding population size was pointed. Since Brazil has such a massive population it's worthy of mention. If Luxembourg were to have a similar election it shouldn't be mention IMO. Perhaps we should select an arbitrary number to add to the guidelines for what is appropriate. jaco ♫ plane  22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My language is not inflammatory, it's fun-e! I demand laughter! I don't want to analyze this BRIC-by-brick and aim at avoiding instruction creep (though I will note that this is the DRC's first election since 1960), but ultimately, in terms of ITNotability, whenever ~120 million (Brazil) or even ~20 million (DRC) people do anything collectively, of historical precedence, we note it on ITN as soon as it happens and we wait for nothing (modifications can come later). El_C 22:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You forgot New Zealand anyway :-P Nil Einne 07:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Uncommonwealth of Australianewzealendianseses. El_C 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Run-off elections for the head of state/government for a country should be included, if there is enough in wikipedia about it, but only once OFFICIAL results have been released. It should not state that "one willbe/is occuring" or give data from things such as exit polls. say1988 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If others share that opinion I expect to encounter greater opposition. I have added exit poll info to ITN before and I suspect I'll do it again. El_C 02:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm personally of the opinion elections (of any type) shouldn't be mentioned at all in ITN until there are results. From memory, this has been the practice for quite a number of countries. In fact, I came here to suggest we don't add the upcoming US elections until there is a result but I'm guessing I'm not going to succeed. Failing this, could we perhaps come to a consensus that all general elections from any country should be features on ITN before they happen? While I don't deny that some countries have a greater influence then others, I believe when it comes to elections we should adopt an all or nothing approach. If we really want to set an arbitary limit, we would need to at least consider both population and GDP (not GDP per capita but both figures independently). Although even then, some countries may still be important (or at least of interest) on an international stage. For example, Israeli and Palestinian elections arguably are rather important in the world even though Israel is only 99 and 53 respectively on the world's population and GDP tables and Palestine isn't technically an independent state/country. Nil Einne 07:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all part of (perceptions of) overall historicontemporaneous significance, which is we should avoid insrtuction creep via quotas. El_C 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * El C, you suspect you'll do it again? I suspect you'll get complaints again. Why jump the gun?
 * The problem is timing, not whether the election is ITN-worthy. WP:CSB has nothing to do with it. The elections should all go up on ITN, but only after final results are added to the relevant Wikipedia articles. To start early, the DR Congo blurb should feature it as the conclusion of "the first multiparty elections in the country in 46 years", then re-worded to mention the winner when we have a winner. Joseph Kabila's picture should be left off ITN till he is officially re-elected. Brazil's election is done, the results are now official, so Lula's picture should go on ITN replacing Kabila's. --64.229.223.132 15:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not the one who added Kabila's picture (that was Zzyzx11), I used the DRC flag. At any rate, I'm unconvinced by those arguments because I fail to see how that's jumping the gun; i.e. see my one-sentence point which has yet to be addressed. El_C 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point "we note it on ITN as soon as it happens and we wait for nothing (modifications can come later)" is clearly against the purpose of ITN and the usual procedure in editing ITN. ITN items link to encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event, so modification should not be coming later, but before the news item goes on ITN. Articles cannot be properly updated till official election results are available, unless you include speculations, which may or may not be reliable and should not be on ITN.
 * Furthermore, official results often won't be available till days later. When it's time to include information about the winner, the item has already been on ITN for days and may appear to readers as old news, or worse, gets bumped off the Main Page. It would be alot better if we wait and post fresh news on ITN when we actually have the final results to show. --64.229.230.139 13:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All that and you've still yet to address my point. Also, items can be bumped back on. It is fresh news & can be updated. El_C 17:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You want someone to address "it's fun-e! I demand laughter!..."? Serious?
 * No, please do not put the item back for a second time, as the second time should have been the first time. If it gets added to ITN too early, it's displacing an existing item prematurely. If another editor does it your way, your news item, though finally featuring a properly updated article, may get displaced by an inadequately updated item. You don't want that, right? Premature additions and displacements reduce the actual time an item featuring a properly updated article can stay on ITN. If everyone does it El C's way, ITN will be filled with inadequately updated items. Soon, no one would be updating any articles and ITN becomes a news-ticker. No, thank you. We already have Portal:Current events for that. Wait for the final results, El C. --64.229.205.180 14:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we have a fundamental disagreement about the role elections should play in In The News. The Axis of Unfluence is somewhat tengaential to my main point about the election event itself (the voting process or exit polls), being, in some cases, important enough to be mentioned when it happens. If and/or when I see more substantial objection (that is, by number of editors; I think you articulated the opposing position substantively & clearly and there's not much to add to it), I'll certainly reconsider the approach then, anonymous editor. Thx. El_C 21:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this even an issue? Surely the elections are of global interest. The question is HOW the elections are portrayed, not IF they are portrayed. --Ezeu 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Eloquence: -important, seems out of place here (were other passengers not important?)
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=next&oldid=84517885

I think the word should be 'senior', not 'important'. -- 64.229.223.132 16:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Eloquence fixed it. Nish kid  64  22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong picture
The piture you display is not the one of brasilian president... It's Nicholas Stern... Better change this quickly!85.201.4.233 21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Nish kid  64  22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Stern's report
Shouldn't it be "Could have economical impact similar to World Wars I, II and the Great Depression"? The current way just doesn't sound right, at least to me.--KrossTalk 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I reworded it a bit. Tell me if you think it sounds good now. Nish kid  64  22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good.--KrossTalk 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)