Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 11

!rules for adding/removing
Before any new list is adopted, it's imperative that a process be developed for add/remove later. Does an item have to pass ITN/C for an add? Is no consensus to keep == remove or does there have to be strong consensus to remove? Are there other criteria? Past discussions have degenerated into accusations of made-up rules. Let's not repeat that unpleasantness in the future. --IP98 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW I oppose requiring an item to pass ITN/C before reaching ITN/R and I oppose no consensus to keep == remove for a remove discussion. --IP98 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think we should encourage items to have passed ITNC as one way to gauge potential support but it shouldn't be a requirement; I'm sure someone could nominate an ITNR worthy event that hadn't been posted before, even if it would be rare.   I believe that the subject of removal discussions should be whether or not to remove an item, not whether or not to keep it. If there is no consensus to remove, then it doesn't get removed.  331dot (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I oppose passing at ITN/C first is because items there must satisfy notability and quality, where at ITN/R only the notability of the event is discussed. --IP98 (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree that having passed ITN/C should not be required. On balance, I think no consensus should mean that status quo remains and the item is not removed. In compiling the new list, however, no consensus will mean that an item won't be on it, even if is on the current one. Neljack (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: How is "no consensus" treated for featured and good content. I checked featured lists for which "consensus must be reached that it still meets the criteria" so there is at least one precedent for "no consensus" equals "removal"/"demotion". Frankly, based on the nature of this list I think "no consensus for remaining on the list" should mean it's removed from the list; however as all items will have demonstrable consensus for original inclusion after the review process I can grudgingly accept "no consensus" equalling "keep". 85.167.109.26 (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If an item is added to WP:FLRC, a notice is added to the article talk page. If no consensus keep == removal, then remove proposals here should trigger a notice at WT:ITN to encourage participation. --IP98 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The normal way Wikipedia works is "no consensus" defaults to the status quo. I see no reason ITN/R should be any different, especially considering the small closed community way not reflect the broader wishes which the item was added to begin with.  Any item passing ITN/C first is good advice, but mandating it is unnecessary bureaucracy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Uber Cup and Thomas Cup - proposed removal from ITN/R
In the universal sport of badminton, we have two cups that aren't competed for "at the highest level" currently listed at WP:ITN/R. Unless I'm mistaken, these have never been listed at ITN. We do still have BWF World Championships listed, the de facto "world championship" for this sport. I propose the removal of the auxiliary tournaments from ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that the Thomas Cup article states (in the lede): "Thomas Cup and, to a lesser extent, Uber Cup are possibly the world's "biggest" and most prestigious regularly held badminton events in terms of player and fan interest. For many they trump major tournaments for individual competitors such as the venerable All-England Championships, the BWF World Championships, and even the badminton competitions at the Olympic Games." This statement doesn't seem to be sourced, but I wonder if anyone with greater knowledge of badminton than I possess can enlighten us on the point. Neljack (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, these tournaments, I'm sure, are significant to some (who?!) just like college football in the US are significant to others, but this is English Wikipedia, we need to understand what impact this has on the English-speaking community of the universe! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the fact that this is the English Wikipedia means we should include only items that are popular in English-speaking countries. I thought this was a universal encyclopaedia, not one of English-speaking countries. Neljack (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there you go, I suppose the systemic bias towards items and articles that interest the world's English-speaking public will naturally float to the top, right or wrong. That's why we see US college basketball finals instead of dozens killed in suicide bombs in the Middle East I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Add proposal: Athletics - Breaking of 100m world record
Event: The breaking of the 100 meters world record for either men or women at any event. Must meet IAAF criteria (e.g. in relation to wind-assistance)

Recurrence: Rare. See Men's 100 metres world record progression and Women's 100 metres world record progression.

Rationale: As per 100 metres, the holder of the record is often referred to as the fastest man/woman in the world. Recording of these records is an essential part of any encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia's ability to change rapidly to reflect such events is something we should showcase on the main page. A new 100-meter record represents something a pinnacle of human athletic achievement, is undoubtedly notable, and occurrences will certainly be major news. There are currently no ITN/R athletics events.

Additional comment: Many other athletics records (other distances, or field events) could be argued with similar reasoning as above. Personally, I would be quite receptive to these. However this nomination is limited (unless there is consensus otherwise) to the 100 meter records, which are the most iconic and news-generating records. From a procedural standpoint I would suggest it would be better to add this hopefully non-controversial item and then consider which other athletic records might also have sufficient notability.

Thanks --LukeSurlt c 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Mild support I'm okay with this, it's better than the original "world record broken" item we used to have. It certainly is the diamond event in any athletics meeting.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support It is the most high-profile world record in athletics. It seems exceedingly unlikely that the women's record will be broken shortly, and Bolt hasn't improved his WR since 2009. It is certainly rare enough to be notable. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. If it's so rare, I don't think it needs to be a recurring event; it will likely get posted if and when it happens.  The recurring event list should be for events that are, well, recurring on a (generally) regular basis.  There is also a physical limit to this statistic; we are likely at the point where it will get broken by miniscule fractions of a second; it isn't earth shattering if someone runs the 100m in 9.86 rather than 9.87. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Too narrow - we don't need ITN/R for an event that could easily not happen in the next 20 years. The item should either be broad (like the old WR item), but well defined (unlike the old item), or each WR should be debated.  Personally, I am fine with the latter - ITN/R isn't meant to list everything we carry, but rather (mostly) predictable events that happen annually or biannually or whatever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

FIBA World Championship (Olympic basketball every four years)
Going in order down the original list of items added without discussion at WP:ITN/R, next up for discussion is the FIBA World Championship. Should it be listed at ITN/R? Note, along with the NBA final and FIBA Wolrds, we also have FIBA EuroBasket and Euroleague Basketball currently listed at ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Currently no mention of the Olympics. I hope this section can be expanded to include all basketball items. In that case I'm neutral (leaning oppose, but insufficient knowledge) on FIBA EuroBasket, support FIBA World Championship and Euroleague Basketball (consider me neutral, as on reflection I think the coverage I've seen is a bit too superficial) and vehemently oppose re-introducing the Olympics. EuroBasket seems to double as a qualifier to the World Championship and it has no or extremely limited coverage in my European (but admittedly basketball-averse) country. Oppose Olympics because while it may be particularly important within the sport, it is not particularly important in the Olympics. Supports are based on coverage implying sufficient notability. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the FIBA championship. It's the international championship for a sport played worldwide.  Hot Stop   13:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support FIBA World Championship and Euroleague; oppose EuroBasket and Olympics. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support FIBA World Championship and Euroleague; oppose EuroBasket and Olympics. Clearly the World Championships in one of the world's most popular sports should be posted. I oppose having any ITN/R items for particular events in the Olympics, amd even if we did have some, basketball wouldn't be at the top of the list (athletics, swimming and gymnastics get more coverage). I don't see the justification for including one continental championship, even if it is the strongest one. Euroleague is the one I was unsure about, but it does seem to have a large international audience and, looking at the section of the article on games between NBA and Euroleague teams, the gap between it and the NBA doesn't seem to be as large as I thought or had heard it described as (11-7 to NBA teams when played under a combination of NBA and FIBA rules, with mixed referees, and the Euroleague champions defeated the NBA champs in 2010). Neljack (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support World Championship only. Basketball really isn't such a big deal in Europe. Formerip (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Basketball may not be a big deal in Britain, but it is in many European countries, and it's growing across the continent. Neljack (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's growing, then good for it. It can be added to ITNR at some point in the future when it has grown enough. Formerip (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support FIBA World Championship and Euroleague; oppose EuroBasket and Olympics as per Neljack. LukeSurlt c 18:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support FIBA World Championship; oppose Olympic basketball; I don't know enough about the others to vote on them at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support World Champs as I thin most WCs are worth posting. Support Euroleague as the 3rd most important club competition (behind NBA & NCAA) - basketball is likely the world's second most popular team sport and thus can support 3 ITN/R club events.  Oppose Eurobasket as a feeder event into WC/Olympics (the later of which will likely not be listed).  Neutral on Olympics - its important, but there is so much sport during the Olympics it is hard to justify ITNR for anything (maybe 100m dash). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

More "low controversy" sports items
Following up on the above thread, I just want to add a few more sports events to this list to avoid further debate. As far as I can tell they have always been posted. As in the above thread, the goal here is to prove community consensus still exists for these items.  Hot Stop   13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stanley Cup Finals
 * The four golf majors (ie the Masters Tournament, U.S. Open (golf), The Open Championship, and the PGA Championship).
 * Premier League championship.
 * Support all as per Hot Stop. --LukeSurlt c 13:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support all: Most important golf tournaments and two truly global "local" competitions. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support all. All have large followings and/or are global in reach. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Don't see where these would ever get wide spread opposition for significance reasons.  -- Jayron  32  23:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support all per IP. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I support the golf majors and the Stanley Cup. However, I suggest we defer discussion of the English Premier League and have a general discussion of (association) football leagues. My view (and I'm not the only one to have taken it) is that the status quo of the Premier League being the only national league on ITN/R is unjustifiable. I would support the Premier League being ITN/R but only if other top-quality national leagues (I think La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga should probably all qualify, though I'm open to arguments to the contrary) are also on the list. Neljack (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert but I believe the rationale for the Premier League is that it is widely watched around the world (Manchester United is the most valued sports team in the world, which contributes to that) while other national leagues are not(or at least haven't been demonstrated to be). 331dot (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga are undoubtedly widely watched around the world. Neljack (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Procedurally, I don't think those three have gone through the process at ITNC yet which means they can't be added right now.   Hot Stop   04:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to stop things that haven't gone through ITN/C from being added to ITN/R. It's certainly happened before. Neljack (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true, but it does help a lot, as it establishes there was consensus for it as a regular non-ITNR item, whereas being here means it has consensus to appear on a regular basis subject to quality. It's harder to establish the latter without the former, even if it is possible. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose other leagues per se, but there shouldn't be any need to delay re-confirming the Premier League. In my country it is covered at least as in-depth as the domestic league (not the case for the other European leagues, even the top teams of those have less coverage), and has been since its inception. It is probably the single most watched league limited to one country, particularly if you take into account that even the weaker teams have fanbases outside the UK thus this applies to mid-table matches as well. The promotion play-off is commonly described as the richest game in football. While there are currently no other domestic (association) football leagues at ITNR, there are other domestic and semi-domestic (e.g. the Stanley Cup) competitions on it, and a comparison will show the Premier League's spot is well-earned. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support NHL+golf, Neutral EPL (it's highly popular even though it's a national league), Strong Oppose other European football leagues such as La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga. I understand that these leagues might be popular, but between the UEFA and EPL, I think European Football is well enough represented. Let's not become a football ticker. --IP98 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was waiting for you to pop up to oppose this.[[Image:Face-smile.svg|20px]] Look, I'm not a big soccer fan either, but the reality is that it is by some distance the most popular sport in the world. I don't think this would result in an over-representation of soccer, just a reflection of its remarkable worldwide popularity. Neljack (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What about Latin America? Brazil, Argentina, Mexico? More football than elections? (I'm actually indifferent to Golf). --IP98 (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have those discussions separately - let's not pre-empt the discussion of mainland European football (and Japanese baseball, Scandinavian ice hockey, etc) at this point. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Maybe stick with the existing list for now? The other Euro-leagues weren't on it before. @Neljack, glad I can be counted on to oppose football noms :). --IP98 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I don't follow football too closely myself, I'm generally much more likely to be in favour of them - which might surprise a recently-blocked verbose ITN contributor. But I'd rather proceed by (1) sticking to the topic under discussion in this thread, and not judging the other issue at all just yet; (2) having some non-sport related discussions for the new standard list next - ideally some arts and politics ones; (3) returning to the question of nationally-significant sports contests once the new list is a bit more balanced. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't want to have the discussion now either; I just want consideration of the English Premier League to be deferred so we can consider all the national leagues together - since my view on whether the EPL should be on ITN/R is contingent on whether we also include other domestic leagues. Neljack (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support all - I can't imagine any of these items ever being voted down. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been quiet for about a week. Shall we close? --LukeSurlt c 10:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: How to deal with "no consensus" and "weak consensus"
We have recently discussed a number of shoo-ins for the rebooted list, but not all cases are equally clear and (nearly) unanimous decisions are not the end all-be all of ITNR. I also got the feeling that we wouldn't add "no consensus" items to that list, on the argument that it is a new list thus we are not technically removing things with no consensus so this is not really urgent. Nevertheless, when the new list is completed "no consensus" will become an issue again. We discussed this a bit above and it is clear we won't go for a "no consensus = remove" option. However, I can't be the only one that sees a problem with items remaining on an "overrule" list based on e.g. a 4:5 minority to retain after an initial 7:3 consensus to include. I also see a problem with items being listed on an "overrule" list with a "weak consensus" of relatively few editors. It is hard to justify a even a two thirds majority of 6:3 overruling a later 6:6 no consensus (or possibly consensus against) but easier to justify 12:6 or 16:8 doing the same. For these reasons I propose that we should list close calls as RFCs in order to get input from editors not frequenting the ITN system. Whether this should be just a strong recommendation, or whether failure to do so should result in delisting the "no consensus" item is something we should discuss, as well as what constitutes too weak consensus to justify being on an overrule list. My personal view (or !vote) is that the RFC should be mandatory for close call removals. If we do not at least attempt to get the wider community's input we can hardly justify a "no consensus" overruling ITNC. In the event that the larger discussion fails to reach a consensus the majority above are in favour of keeping on the list, and I don't challenge that now as all items on the rebooted list will have at least one consensus for inclusion. For suggested additions an RFC would be an option for the supporting side as if they do not get the consensus nothing will happen. I further suggest that we strongly recommend soliciting input by means of an RFC if the consensus for inclusion could reasonably be seen as weak. (This would be the opposers "responsibility".) Disclaimer: Numbers used as examples do not represent vote counting, but rather the number of idealised !votes with valid, reasonable arguments on their side. The key proposal is that in the event of a removal discussion resulting in no consensus it should not immediately be closed as such, instead we should ask the wider community by means of an RFC. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need a formal policy to do that; users are free to ask for RfCs now. I would also wonder who would determine what a close call is and if it would involve evaluating the arguments given. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was vague on "close call" as I consider it up for discussion. Good point about RFCs being possible know. With one exception this could be considered a proposal that we explicitly point out and recommend this possibility. The exception is that if a removal proposal is not outright rejected, but ends up as no consensus (i.e. it would not have been included) an RFC should be started (by the would be closer) in lieu of closing as no consensus. I'll clarify this in the opening post. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An RfC on each item is not remotely feasible. After the first couple, RfC participation would drop to a meaninglessly low level due to editor burnout from those not really interested in ITN but willing to give their opinion once or twice.  What we need is an RfC on general guidelines (international press coverage?, cultural value in home country?, "top level"?, etc.) used to determine worthiness. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points. I don't think "no consensus removals" will be that common once we have a list where all items have at least one consensus. I think the "fundamental criteria" used to select stories are rather vague. I also think we are to strict, in general. I'm not saying we should post celebrity stories, but otherwise I don't think importance is that important. (To take an example currently on this page, I'd prefer that we post things like Uber Cup, but I don't think it fits on ITNR based on the items currently rejected at ITNC. I would support it at ITNC, in a futile attempt to change the current threshold. ) 85.167.109.26 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal - Millennium Prize
Seven mathematical problems, one of which has already been proven. It seems to have crept into ITN/R during this ITN/C nomination back in 2010. I'm not doubting it's notability but I don't think there's a need to place an infrequent, finite event on ITN/R. Any further solutions shouldn't have a problem going through ITN/C. Funny Pika! 18:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal let's have them go through ITNC. Given the irregular nature of the award it's hard to guess how much it will actually be in the news when given.   Calidum Sistere   18:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. Too irregular for ITNR. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the nominator says, Any further solutions shouldn't have a problem going through ITN/C. So all a removal will do is mean that these items will have posting delayed for about 12 hours while "support" votes roll in. Sure its a little odd, but there's no benefit to removing it. --LukeSurlt c 21:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove there's no benefit to such an article at ITN/R, as demonstrated by recent ITN/R's which have been dismissed on notability grounds. Obscure items like this need to be debated and 12 hours of delay is really irrelevant in the big scheme of things (how long did we wait before posting the murder of Drummer Rigby?)  If we wait two or three days to post something like that, we can debate the solution of a maths problem for a few hours before we post, can't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only question, to my mind, is whether this prize will always be sufficiently notable to warrant posting (subject to update). I think it will, given that it is a very large prize that involves the solution of major mathematical problems. Additionally science/maths is underrepresented on ITN and ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - Just because this is finite and irregular, is no reason not to keep it on; it's inevitably a huge deal when one of these is awarded. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove - If an item is not "reoccurring" it shouldn't be on ITN/R. While I don't see much chance of any solution being rejected at ITN/C, Millennium Prize solutions are unlikely to occur anywhere near a rate that could reasonably be called "reoccurring" (so far 1 in 12+ years).  ITN/R is not meant to include everything we will obvious post, just things that happen once a year (or every few years) at regular intervals.  There are many things that will have unanimous support if/when they happen, but aren't suitable for ITN/R.  This is one of them. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove; Support - because, first, it isn't recurring. Second, because it could just go through ITN/C if it needs to be on the main page. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Japan Series baseball
Japan Series baseball. This sticks out like a sore thumb. Domestic tournament, doesn't appear to have a big international following (no global TV audience to speak of). Formerip (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove per nominator. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Biggest sporting event in heavily populated country. -- Jayron  32  20:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the world's tenth most populous country. But it's the only non-Anglophone country to have a domestic sporting event listed at ITNR. Formerip (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not ITN/C.  Whether contributors consider the event to be important or not is irrelevant.  This is ITN/R: the only relevant issue is whether we are confident that the community will consider that the event is so important that it should be included at ITN every time it occurs.  The only evidence for that is the unanimity with which previous nominations have been accepted.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's nothing to do with the way the ITNR list was put together, you know. Each item was added because there was an agreement between editors that it was important enough. So removing an item because editors agree that it is not important enough would seem logical.
 * Any road, in this case we seem to have something that has never actually been posted in its own right. It was nominated in 2009. It got equal supports and opposes and then it was added to the blurb for the World Series: . Formerip (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I argued above, a large part of why the ITN/R experiment Mk 1 failed was because fulfilling the meaning of ITN/R was never, or at least very rarely, the basis for electing items to ITN/R status. There is no point in repeating the error.
 * It has been demonstrated many times that it is false to claim that "Each item was added because there was an agreement between editors that it was important enough". Kevin McE (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that the problem is that editors didn't follow your idea of how ITNR should be put together, but that it has been demonstrated many times that they did? Formerip (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove this can always be renominated on an ad-hoc basis; there's no evidence it's notable enough for an automatic pass. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove never heard of it and it would be useful to discuss why it should be ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove per Medeis. Modest Genius talk 13:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Someone "never hearing of this" is not sufficient reason to remove something, as I'm sure that would be the case with many, if not all events.  There's always someone living under a rock somewhere relative to an event.  How does one person "not hearing of this" demonstrate that it is not notable?  That said, I would need to see more proof that it is equivalent to the World Series as a top-tier tournament to support its retention in ITNR, and as such I support remove. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep having never heard of it is totally irrelevant. I've never heard of the Six Nations Championship, but still recognized it's relevance. Being a domestic tournament is also irrelevant, it's highly important in Japan, and remember Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.. Re-nominating on an ad-hoc basis leads to inconsistency and the usual bickering about the importance of XYZ sporting event. Lastly, the articles are updated to a decent quality and are definitely good enough to feature on the main page. So for all those reasons, a strong keep from me. --IP98 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every year. Listing at ITN/R would not serve to avoid an annual discussion with an entirely predictable outcome, which is the only reason for listing something at ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that a single oppose to inclusion on ITN/R is reason to strike the item from ITN/R? --IP98 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but I am distinguishing between a !vote for posting at ITN/C ("I believe this is important enough to post today") and a !vote for inclusion at ITN/R ("This is something that I believe the community would consider important enough to post every time it occurs"). It makes sense to !vote in the face of non-trivial opposition  in the former case, not in the latter.  See |my comments on the Olympic ice hockey below. Kevin McE (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every year. I interpret that to mean "if an item is opposed on ITN/R then it may be opposed on ITN/C and therefore should not be included at ITN/R". Is that interpretation correct? --IP98 (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is enough opposition to make the conclusion that consensus to post will be present dubious, then yes, I would oppose ITN/R listing and encourage others to do likewise. Do you accept the distinction between ITN/C style votes and ITN/R votes that I make above? Kevin McE (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is "enough opposition"? I'm asking because you're proposing a major change to the way Wikipedia operates. Suggesting "no consensus to remove" an item from ITN/R === "it should not be on ITN/R" it a big stretch for me, and I strongly oppose that notion. --IP98 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You ask a question by selectively omitting the answer to it: "enough opposition to make the conclusion that consensus to post will be present dubious". That is probably best not treated with a strict mathematical formula: an administrator should decide upon, and be answerable for, closing a discussion with due consideration to the effect of the closing decision.
 * It is clear every time that it is nominated at ITN/C that the inclusion of the All Ireland Football Championship is contentious (not unthinkable, but contentious), but we are told that we may not even discuss it each year because its removal was discussed with a 6-6 stalemate.
 * I am at a loss as to how you believe that a decision here that has no meaningful consensus (anything less than an overwhelming "retain") can have enough authority to disqualify any discussion regarding consensus as to importance at a page with far more participants.
 * I ask again, do you accept the distinction between ITN/C style votes ("I think it's important enough to post") and ITN/R votes ("I am confident that the community will consider this important enough for the foreseeable future) that I make above? Kevin McE (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

De-archiving this - can someone who hasn't commented please make a close decision? Formerip (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Whoa didn't see this before. How is this different from having the English Premier League on ITN/R? As soccer is to England, so is baseball to Japan. I see plenty of news coverage about the Japan Series from past years in just a cursory Google News search. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where you won't see it is on a TV set outside Japan. That's the difference. Formerip (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - One of the most important domestic baseball championships there is. A sporting contest doesn't have to be the unique most prestigious, nor to be international, in order to attract our attention. I've been thinking a lot about the posting of sporting events here. I was surprised that the FA Cup did not get posted this week, but on reflection the argument is correct - it's really declined in prominence in the past 20 years. That's not an argument against domestic contests, but a reminder that we need to review this list regularly. I find this comment from the proposer of this move to be very telling: "it's the only non-Anglophone country to have a domestic sporting event listed at ITNR". If we remove this, domestic sport on en.wikipedia will be an exclusively English-speaking affair. And I must repeat what I have said before: this is Wikipedia in English, not Wikipedia about English speakers. What became of the proposal to include La Liga and the Bundesliga as well? I still support those. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively to making ITN exclusively about domestic sport in English-speaking countries, we could identify and nominate other domestic sport stories that are of genuine worldwide interest, rather than maintaining a place at ITNR for something plucked at random in the name of tokenism. Formerip (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Alex Tiefling. Plus it's one of the most significant sporting competitions in all of Asia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bundesliga and La Liga probably should have been considered. Annoyingly these competitions were dominated by Bayen Munich and Barcelona to such an extent that when they did eventually technically become unassailable, it wasn't big news and escaped nomination attention. Though we've missed the chance for an ITN/C candidacy, I still think we could decide to place one or both on ITN/R - listing would likely help avoid 'accidental' omission of nomination for one. This is probably a discussion for another section however. --LukeSurlt c 18:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Parameters for reviewing the ITNR list
I'm going to be bold and start this conversation; if this isn't the proper way to do so, I welcome being corrected.

The recent discussion to decommission ITNR outright did not result in a consensus to do so, but there did seem to be agreement among persons on both sides that some sort of review of the list was need and/or would be helpful. I am starting this conversation to establish the parameters for such a review.

My initial proposal is that we use the existing list as a starting point to create a new list. We can take each item on the current list and discuss the merits of including it in ITNR, as if it was being discussed for the first time. If it gains consensus for inclusion, it would be put on the new list; if it does not gain consensus, then it would not be included. Once all events on the current list were reviewed, it would be removed and the new list put in its place. I would also suggest that any brand new suggestions for ITNR be held until the existing list was reviewed, as there will be a lot of discussions going on.

This would result in a record of discussion for each item that can be referenced in the future(something which we don't have now, especially for events on the current list since it was created) and ensure that the list does indeed contain events that the community has deemed notable enough for regular inclusion(assuming adequate quality).

My proposal is a general one and I welcome suggestions for specifics, changes, or even completely different ideas. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the general idea. How should we do this? RFC for each item then move to the next or should we engage in multiple RFCs at a time? How long should RFCs remain open for?  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support This seems sensible. We could probably have several items open for discussion at the same time. It might make sense to discuss all the items for a particular sport (or other topic) at the same time. I don't agree, though, that people should be precluded from nominating new items during the review process. For instance, when discussing football we might well want to consider whether having the EPL as the only national league truly reflects the relative importance of other club leagues (e.g. La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga). Neljack (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment before staring I think it would help to codify the "rules" for inclusion. At the NCAA thread several people indicated that since it failed ITN/C it shouldn't be added to ITR/R, yet below in the "Giro d'Italia" discussion I'm being berated for suggesting the same. --IP98 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess the most important rule is WP:CON. So it's really up to your ability to convince people using strong arguments.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  22:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's difficult to achieve consensus if people have quite different ideas about what the the purpose of ITN/R is and how items should be evaluated. The issue over whether an item should have been previously (successfully) nominated at ITN/C before being put on ITN/R is related to a more fundamental disagreement: are we are judging whether an item has clear community consensus or whether we think it is sufficiently important (each time it occurs) to satisfy the importance criterion for ITN/C? I hold the latter view (which seems to be how the list has been compiled), but some ITN regulars hold the former views. If this disagreement isn't resolved it will lead to people talking past each other and make consensus more difficult to achieve. Neljack (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The other thing that needs to be worked out is whether items where there is no consensus should be retained or removed. Personally since we're doing a full review I'd be happy to say that only items with consensus should be on the new list. I recall, however, that there was a discussion a few months ago on this issue which (ironically!) couldn't reach consensus. Neljack (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That was about discussing existing items on the list and if consensus was not reached to keep them. I am proposing creating a brand new list, where an item not achieving consensus would result in it not being on the new list. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for multiple RfC's. What could be established is that Items specifically be nominated newly for ITN as recurring items, and if they pass with say, at least 3/4 vote in favor of ITNR at that point they would be confirmed to the list.  The big problem now is we have so many items on it with absolutely no evidence of even 3/5 support. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments. Firstly, we should be incorporating a general look at the list, as well as considering individual items. We want balance out of the list, we want it to be long enough to be useful but not so long as to be unmanageable, we want it to be reasonably consistent between items and topic areas in terms of what it considers ITNR-worthy. Secondly, we need an understanding in advance as to what constitutes a consensus for this purpose. Different people have different ideas, it seems, with some thinking we need near unanimity and others almost thinking that inclusion can be worked out by a logical process, so that objections can be disregarded. The whole exercise is going to be useless if we have inconsistent closes. How we close generally should be considered, because I can picture users hanging back from discussions in order to cast supervotes. Thirdly, I think retaining the current set-up as a default position should be an option in the event that things get messy - which implies that we do not make amendments as we go but, for example, after we have dealt with a sub-section. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be best to try to figure out a general framework to evaluate items. My preference would be a well advertised, community wide RfC on ITN in general.  That is, are we too selective, not selective enough, what are we consistently missing, are items "very important to only one country" worthy of posting, etc. We need to know what the community feels is important before we can decide what is "obvious" enough for ITN/R.  If we don't do that, it will just be the dozen or so regulars voting on "party lines" (at least when it comes to sports). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It is important to recognise that ITNC is a local consensus. ITNR could serve a dual purpose of listing "obvious posts" for keeping the events on the radar, as well as a mechanism for a Wikipedia-wide consensus on various recurring events to bypass a local no consensus (or consensus against posting) among ITNC regulars. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I meant. The RFC should briefly explain what is ITN/R and how it is different from ITN/C as well as giving a brief explanation about history of the process and the reasons behind the RFC. I think it should be done in stages:


 * The first stage could be an optional one in which we ask if people like the current process or would like to change it.
 * Since we already had an RFC on we whether want ITN/R to go or be reformed, then we can skip this stage (unless there's a strong feeling it wasn't done probably).
 * The third stage is how the reform should take place: 1. Should we make a new list in which all items must get consensus to be included (no consensus = no inclusion) or should those with no consensus stay? 2. Should any item that failed in getting consensus for posting in ITN/C in the past be disqualified? 3. Should any item that wasn't nominated in ITN/C in the past be disqualified? 4. How many items should be up for discussion at a time?
 * The forth stage is where we start discussing the items depending on the result of the previous stage.
 * So actually it could be only two stages. Opinions?  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  10:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My initial suggestion above discusses some of what you mention. I think that we should make a new list using the current list as a starting point.  Each event would be discussed and consensus sought on whether it should be placed on the revised list.  No consensus, no placement on the revised list.  I have proposed not dealing with events which are not currently on the list until the current members of the list have been worked through; once that happens (or if we elect not to do that) I don't think we need to specifically prohibit items that did not pass ITNC; I think the community is capable of seeing such events and dealing with them accordingly.
 * I have given thought to how many discussions should take place at one time; there seems to be roughly 70-80 events on the list or so. One a week is obviously impractical (it would take over a year to create the new list) and discussing the entire list at once is also impractical (whether it is as a block or each item given an individual discussion).  Something in between would seem to be the best; maybe 10 a week?  It would only take a couple months to go through the list with that number.  331dot (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have been more clear. I meant an RfC on the direction of ITN in general (not just ITN/R).  We can't expect the broader community to participate in 70 discussions on individual items, but we could hopefully interest them in one discussion on the direction of ITN (what are we not posting enough of?, etc.) and use it as feedback.  The reason I say ITN in general and not ITN/R is that ITN/R should just be items that always "pass" based on our normal standards, so getting feedback on our normal standards is what we really need. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There must be a significant proportion, possibly a majority, of the list that are wholly uncontroversial and we can pass by 'Acclamation'. I doubt anyone thinks we shouldn't be including Academy Awards or the FIFA World Cup. Let's pick the low-hanging-fruit here first, then we can work out where we need RfC involvement. --LukeSurlt c 19:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: add Giro d'Italia to the cycling section of ITN/R
This is second only to the Tour de France in cycling, and cycling is a global sport, unlike baseball and ice hockey and American football. It would be useful to consider including it at ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what American football has to do with anything, ice hockey is a global and Olympic sport... Regardless, has this ever been nominated at ITN/C? --IP98 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, American football isn't a "global" sport, cycling is. And ice hockey is not global (they play that in India?  China?  Australia?  Peru?).  The Giro is all over the news in Europe.  Just wondered if anyone else considered it as important as the "ice hockey" finals... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Though totally irrelevant to your nomination: Australian Ice Hockey League --IP98 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the UK has an ice hockey tournament too. But what relevance?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You specifically asked "they play that in ... Australia?"--IP98 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, has this ever been nominated at ITN/C? --IP98 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You tell me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (For what it's worth, in about a week, it will be...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it would be up to me to research your nomination. Several editors above indicated that an item should pass an ITN/C nom before it can be considered for ITN/R. Maybe let this one wait about a week? --IP98 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And many editors have indicated that ITN/R is "just fine" which clearly it isn't. Are you adding a new "unwritten" perquisite to items being added to ITN/R?  Interesting.  Where are the guidelines please?  Or the "rules" as some editors seem to dictate these days!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And many editors have indicated that ITN/R is "just fine" which clearly it isn't. <-- irrelevant. Are you adding a new "unwritten" perquisite to items being added to ITN/R? <-- no. Interesting. Where are the guidelines please?  Or the "rules" as some editors seem to dictate these days!  <-- impossible to answer. --IP98 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you must manufacture conflict. Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that any story proposed for ITN/R ought to have been nominated at ITN/C -- and passed -- at some point, at the very least. There's nothing unreasonable or "interesting" about that. And, that doesn't rule this out anyway because the Giro d'Italia was nominated and posted last year -- although partially because a Canadian won it. It would have taken just a few minutes to discover that. That being said, I'm not sure why this couldn't wait until after this year's race is nominated next week. --  tariq abjotu  03:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur" is bollocks I'm afraid, the first pass at ITN/R was without discussion. Go check the history.  Show me (and Medeis) where there was a consensus that stated the Heineken Cup has "already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time [it] occurs".  We have several dozen items in ITN/R for which have never had any consensus.  While we're at it, what is the "'importance' criterion"?  Where is that defined? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose addition. Cycling is indeed global, but it's prestige has taken a massive hit in the last decade, and it was a pretty niche sport anyway.  I'm against giving the Giro a free pass on ITN.  The Giro isn't near the TDF in terms of prestige; many top riders don't compete in it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I guess I'm just drawn to this as we have three badminton ITN/R's right now, three baseball, five rugby union and five marathon ITN/Rs.  One imagines that more people cycle than play baseball, rugby union, run marathons combined and then some, so this has more relevance to a wider audience than the other niche nominations. But thanks for your interest. (FWIW, the BBC, The New York Times, The Sydney Morning Herald etc all cover the Giro daily, so there's no doubt it's "in the news", but perhaps doesn't match the "the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN" [whatever that means]). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: National Rugby League, Superleague, and Super Rugby
Since the Heineken Cup is no longer considered by several editors to be "top of its profession" (and hence not worthy of ITN/R), then these shouldn't either, so I propose their removal from ITN/R purely from a perspective that we need consistency here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Might have been better to do separate threads for each of these. --IP98 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Super League is the top-level professional rugby league club competition in Europe. Six Nations is national teams right? This is top level professional teams, so I see no reason to strike it. --IP98 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know the difference between Super Rugby and the NRL. --IP98 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It pretty much mirrors the differences between the Heineken Cup and Super League. They are both the top professional club competitions in the southern hemisphere for their respective codes. Super Rugby consists of fifteen teams, five in each of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The NRL consists of 16 teams (nine based in New South Wales, one in Melbourne, one in New Zealand, one in the ACT and three in Queensland). Super Rugby is superseded by the Tri nations an annual competition between the national teams of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. There is not really a bigger annual competition than the NRL for league, although a case could be made for State of Origin. In terms of numbers the NRL gets more interest (newspaper articles, TV viewers and spectators) in Australia than union. Super Rugby is the more widely watched and reported on in New Zealand and South Africa. I am not sure what is more popular outside those countries. The current version of the NRL started in 1998 (but has been expanded from a NSW competition that has run since 1908). Super rugby started in 1995 (expanding from Super 6/10 which started in 1992). AIR corn (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the discussions which established these as items. Without such documentation they should be summarily removed. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * These mention adding or removing the items. Most are on rugby union. AIR corn (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 1
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 1
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 1
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 2
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 5
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 5.
 * Heineken Cup was added at the very first draft of WP:ITN/C without any consensus as far as I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support removals - per reasoning. As I post this, we have five blurbs. Three are sports stories. This is evidence that ITN/R is broken and that it causes ITN to be out of balance. We really need to fix it by removing a majority of sports requirements. Sports has become the tail that wags the ITN dog, and the feature winds up looking trivial. Jus  da  fax   08:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing certain sports from ITNR doesn't preclude them from being nominated and posted as a regular candidate.(unless you are arguing the chances are these events wouldn't get posted annually) We also cannot control the occurrence of non-sports events that might be worthy of posting- it has been slow in that department, which might be why the sports seem to be showing up more. That said, if there is no discussion to back up their presence on ITNR, they should be removed. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose removals - I am comfortable that all these events are the top of their respective sports (not sure why a complaint about Heineken Cup precludes nominating two rugby league competitions). Also note that the Heineken Cup discussion was closed by the nominator. Super Rugby is the southern hemisphere equivalent of the Heineken Cup, and the top players from New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa all play in this competition (those three countries are ranked top three in the world at the moment). As for rugby league; the National Rugby League and Super League are the only true professional rugby league competitions in the world, and probably can't be separated in terms of the "top" one. Regarding the argument that there are too many sports ITN posts, I'd argue there is too low a turnover of posts, which isn't solved by culling events from ITN/R. - Shudde  talk 10:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment To my mind Super Rugby, Heineken Cup, NRL, Super league and AFL (to throw another in the ring) are all much of a muchness when it comes to importance. You could make individual cases for each (Super Rugby having more global interest, NRL being one of the top tiers of the sport etc) and individual cases against each (basically the reverse arguments). I would either keep them all or remove them all, depending on whether you think there are too many sports items or not enough. I lean to removing as they can always be nominated outside of itn/r. AIR corn (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: International CES and Electronic Entertainment Expo
We never see the major auto shows being listed (Geneva, Paris, Tokyo Frankfurt and Detroit), nor Photokina nor even the Nuremberg International Toy Fair nor nominated yet both International CES and Electronic Entertainment Expo are listed as ITN/R, yet they have their equal level of significance to the two aforementioned shows. Whilst they are significant to the industry itself like any other shows are, I can't see why should they be on ITN/R. Also they are insignificant to the exhibitions, fairs and summits listed on ITN/R. If keep those two, as well as those I mentioned, we may as well list every major international industry shows and ITN will be cluttered with it. Donnie Park (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal of both. I was somewhat taken aback to see the CES being ITN/R, it's interesting, but not much more. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd rather see those other shows added to ITN/R than removing these. It helps to broaden the scope of what ITN/R covers so that it's more than just deaths, elections, disasters, and sporting events. Mind you, there's selectivity needed - we should be talking events that get mainstream press coverage (CES and E3 do for sure, I'm sure some of those car shows do too). --M ASEM (t) 16:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with these events being added, if there was something notable to report, other than just the event itself. There are probably dozens of large-scale events with hundreds of thousands of visitors which don't really deserve to be automatically inserted into ITN via ITN/R.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, just the events happening - not sufficient. We need almost a two-prong test: that the event occurs is widely reported, and that things that are revealed or discussed during that event are themselves reported, determined on the reoccurring basis. So CES and E3 are big events with big reveals (here for E3 two next-gen consoles and major AAA-list games). I would fairly assume that the mentioned car shows are also big reveals for new models. On the other hand, take something like the San Diego Comic Con, the "big" comic book convention that would be akin to E3/CES - it gets attention, but rarely does the new "products" introduced get mainstream coverage. As such, I wouldn't even consider it for ITN/R. --M ASEM  (t) 16:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that two-prong assessment comment is bang on. That's why I don't think these should be ITN/R because ITN/R implies no need to assess the significance of the event, just the update.  If we deemed (for instance) that both the PS5 and the Xbox 1040 being announced at CES 2018 is important enough for ITN, so be it, but if it's "Sim City 7" gets released and Service Pack 7 for Windows 8, that's hardly ground-breaking.  I could probably list a dozen trade shows in the UK alone which attract over 100,000 visitors (similar to CES).  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm indifferent as to whether these shows should be ITNR or not, but I will say that other stuff exists and that is not a sufficient argument to remove these shows; if one feels important trade shows are being left out, then they should propose them for posting(as ITNR or not).  I would also keep in mind that we are in the process of creating a draft rewrite of the ITNR list (link above) and this discussion could probably be taken into account in doing so.  331dot (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vehement oppose these trade shows are big events and are widely followed by fans. The easily satisfy WP:ITN/P #1 and #3. I'm in favor of adding more shows. Add auto shows, add air shows, add the book shows add SanDiego Comicon. If there is a good article, worthy of going on the main page, then it goes, otherwise it doesn't. We post tons of "events". Man kicks ball into net, horse runs around track, woman hits ball with racket, guy writes book everyone liked, and on and on and on. Are we so hoity-toity that only gentlemen's sports and authors get to be featured on the prestigious "In the news"? --IP98 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we're just debating whether these trade shows deserve a free pass or whether they should be debated for significance each year. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for four main reasons. Firstly, the events are "in the news" with in depth coverage of both events by e.g. the Guardian. Secondly, at the time of nomination, they will be "recent or current events of wide interest" (indeed they seem to be the most important in their fields) and pending the update meet all the ITN criteria. Thirdly, despite having a soft spot for sport, I recognise that we should strive for more variety, not less. Nominating top events in other fields is more desireable than removing the top events in these fields. Finally (for the E3), while the comparison with car shows is probably valid (not a field of interest), the comparison with film and other cultural events should also be considered. As a part of popular culture video games is certainly important enough for an ITNR item, and (unlike the earlier poetry discussion) a clear top event is identifiable. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal I feel as if Donnie's objections to these two items stems from a lack of understanding about the importance they have in their respective industries. E3 has massive significance to the direction of the video game industry each year since it is the event where hardware and software are revealed. This year, for instance, several guaranteed blockbuster titles were revealed in the first day alone and there was major information about the next generation of consoles which will have a massive impact on the industry. While E3 and CES might be of equal significance to the various trade shows Donnie mentioned, I would argue they are massively more important and influencial to their industries. --71.17.196.5 (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment could someone please provide a link to the original discussion that led to these items being listed at ITNR.   Hot Stop   04:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * here (and thanks to User:FunnyPika for doing the research). --IP98 (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both.   Hot Stop   02:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - Much as per IP98. Consumer electronics and video games are unlikely, by their nature, to generate regular ITN/C items (we have a firm precedent about not posting individual product launches). Having this in the ITN/R roster means these are assured to get some attention, which seems appropriate given their cultural importance. This is one of the functions of ITN/R. --LukeSurlt c 10:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's inclusion at ITN/R is something of a sympathy vote, that this kind of thing really doesn't make the news, and we'd do it as as result of some kind of positive bias? It shouldn't be down to us to determine the cultural significance of items which clearly don't really make it in the news.  Specialist news outlets will track this trade fair, but not much beyond that.  WWDC will attract genuine attention, perhaps we should focus on featuring that?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal and support addition of more trade shows. Business is woefully underrepresented on ITN and the kidns of things that ate big business news (product launches, mergers, earnings reports) are usually opposed.  We need some business stories other than fraud and other criminal charges and trade shows are a good chance to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal am quite surprised there's any support at all for a local commercial expo. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are "local", in that while they take place in the US and heavily feature US products, it is technology that is shipped and used world-wide. (to compare, there is the Toyko Game Show, which is predominate gaem products that will only get released in Japan though with a smattering of some western releases. That I would consider local). --M ASEM  (t) 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem with this artificial trade show is that pretty much everything that's announced is known beforehand (PS4, Xbox One etc). Maybe we should add WWDC to ITN/R, since that genuinely has global impact most times?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me reiterate the two-pronged test about - that the show itself (not the products themselves) widely in news sources, and that products or other announcements are also widely covered in news sources. Yes, the Xbox One and PS4 were known ahead of time, but if you look at non-video game sources, it is like this is their first reveal to the world at large, in terms of news. If you can do this for any other trade show, sure, it should be added. I'd rather see more trade shows added to broaden ITN's scope than limit it. --M ASEM (t) 19:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "two-pronged" approach is standard ITN, not ITN/R. Obviously if we need a two-pronged approach we should discuss the inclusion of this each time round.  Hence not ITN/R-worthy.  As I noted, WWDC does a much better job of "surprises" and influences millions of Apple users each time, so would WWDC qualify for inclusion?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as both WWDC and product news are coming from mainstream sources (and not Apple or high tech sites), sure. Same thing with CES, E3, and any other trade show you can name. If mainstream media is covering it, and we can support articles on them, there's no reason to not include that. Of course, that said - I agree that ITN/R case becomes weaker, but I would rather see the case then generalized to account for the test. In other words, the ITN/R would be revamped as "Trade shows, but only where both the show itself, and major product announcements are widely covered in mainstream, independent news sources." --M ASEM  (t) 20:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WWDC's output is highly anticipated and has a huge effect on Apple's share price, it really counts. It's followed closely by many tech websites, live streamed, blogged etc.  It's all over the web.  E3 is just a bunch of stands with a few pseudo-announcements which we all already knew about.  Trade shows, by default, should not be included, they're a money-spinning event which do nothing at all other than advertise products, and our promotion of them on the main page must be a god-send for them.  Third-most visited website in the world providing de facto advertising for a week without any effort at all.  Well done Wikipedia!  I'm shocked that so many people support the free advertising provided to this simple (and unremarkable) trade show.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can say the same thing about sporting event coverage and that has even less effect on the average reader - it's just highlighting people and organizations already making millions of dollars. Yet no one complains about these. I completely understand avoiding the promotional aspects one can see here, but at the same time, there's very little coverage of modern technology that ITN can otherwise support. We need to be selective, and avoid blurbs that read as advertising.  (And if we're really worried about that, then our DYK process should exclude commercial products of any type. Which they don't - they do vet for promotional vs "interesting fact" however). --M ASEM  (t) 20:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a trade fair. It's about selling stuff.  Generally speaking, everything that happens at trade fairs is pre-announced.  The result of Superbowl or World Series or the Cricket World Cup is not usually pre-announced.  There's no direct link to publishing an ITN about the FA Cup final to advertising, unlike publishing a direct link to E3 (which makes all its money from advertising and publicity) which we seem to wish to publish while it's still ongoing (unlike sporting events which we usually publish after the event, hence reducing the potential revenue stream from free main page advertising).  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a trade fair and it is 99% about marketing, but at the same time, there is a long tail of how these products will eventually affect consumer's lives. (eg: a big issue about used game sales arose from this conference, which affects rights of first sale, etc.) However, a carefully worded blurb avoids making it an advertisement and simply that the event that can have implications for those interested in that field. (Also, we do announce the start of certain sporting events like the Olympics, even though we also report results). And I'll point out again that the number of readers that are affected by the results of sporting events is very small; it's a popular topic but most results have little impact on the rest of the world. The argument about commercial advertising on the front page is bogus as long as TFA and DYK allow for articles about commercial products. I completely agree we don't want any blurb on the page "Hey, read about this product so you are urged to buy it", we want the blurbs to read "Hey, here's an article of decent quality about a topic you might be interested it, go read and help improve it."  We can do that for commercial products and for trade shows, and we have done in in the past without problems, so that argument is rather weak.  --M ASEM  (t) 15:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, if something of note happens during this kind of fair, then cool. We should run it through ITN/C to see if it's of genuine interest to people.  The current E3 ITN/C is not going to be posted, it's a good clue as to why it ought not be in ITN/R.  If the blurb had said something like "The 2013 E3 concludes, with the PS4 and XBoxOne being announced" then fair enough.  The fact that both consoles were announced beforehand renders that blurb somewhat inaccurate, but you get my drift.  If more than just a bunch of new video games are announced each time, then fine, but we should discuss it each time.  It's worth pointing out that this isn't to ban this topic from ITN forever, just to make it so we discuss it each year.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To the bulk of the public, this show was the first reveal in depth of these products (in terms of games and capabilities - what most end users care about), despite being announced ahead of time (and in these industries, pre-announcements are sort of necessary so that the press can make necessary arrangements to be all set to report on it). But more to the other point - while I can agree that discussing inclusion in ITN for these trade shows does make sense, stripping out the ITN/R part basically means that there is going to be rehash of this same type of discussion every time a trade show comes up. ("is this advertizing? what cam out of it?" etc.) I think its clear these trade shows are ITN/R -worthy as to avoid the rehashing of the basic arguments, but still require discussion just like every other ITN/R item instead of automatic inclusion. As ITN/R says, it is does not guarantee automatic listing, so we're safe leaving these on and then having the question at each iteration "is this particular show really ITN-worthy enough?" As long as being listed in ITN/R is not a 100% guarentee of posting, then we can leave these in here and follow your advice on checking year-by-year. (I'd also consider the idea of a ITN/semi-R that events like these qualify for, if only to keep the arguments of whether these topics in general are ITN-worthy to one place (here) and then have the ITN/C page be used to discuss that specific event occurence.) --M ASEM (t) 15:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, enough now, let's agree to differ. I think we've grown this "wall of text" sufficiently now.  Much more and we'll suffer the wrath of others.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal These events were added following a here discussion two years ago. From my reading of that discussion, I don't believe there should have been consensus to add these items to ITNR at the time.  And since being added to the list, neither event has been posted -- or even nominated at ITNC.  That's strike two.  Regardless of my first two points, I don't feel either event is automatically notable enough.  Take this year's E3 for example.  Both Sony and Microsoft unveiled their new consoles before the convention -- I would say those announcements were more notable than E3 itself.  Remember that even if these events were delisted from ITNR, they could still be posted through the normal means at ITNC if something truly important happened.    Hot Stop   02:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, E3 was posted in 2011 (but not 2012). CES has not been posted.   Hot Stop   05:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note this year's E3 is currently at ITN/C and has no consensus for main page inclusion, which somewhat makes a mockery of it still being at ITN/R, surely? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That depends on which is the wider discussion. (Also, some opposes are based on update, and under current rules supporters have no real reason to take part in a discussion on notability there rather than here.) In my opinion, ITNR should strive to have larger discussions with more participants than is possible in the time-limited ITNC discussions, hence ITNC should not overrule a wider ITNR consensus. The key problem with ITNR is the lack of discussion on some older items and the ongoing clean-up is therefore required. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The key here is that the existing E3 nomination at ITN/C is being rejected, not on article quality but on newsworthiness. Hence why should this particular event remain an ITN/R if even when it still is an ITN/R, it's considered not important enough for the main page?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see four supports, two quality and update opposes (who also has concerns it shouldn't be listed here) and three opposes not mentioning quality. Note that according to the current system supports on notability should not be necessary, and they may be underrepresented in the ITNC discussion. This is where we discuss these items, and it would be preferable if they were challenged here two weeks ago. ETA: Based on my !Vote count in this discussion it is clear that "support for notability votes" are underrepresented in the ITNC discussion, as suspected. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hardly think, given this discussion running in parallel with the nomination, that there should be any excuse that the "notability" supports are under-represented. The article is of lame quality, and the ITN/C crowd don't want it there in any case.  How we can then justify its persistence at ITN/R for "cultural" reasons (or otherwise) when the existing ITN/C nomination is heading south is beyond me. People know what ITN/C and ITN/R are all about.  (Four different editors have opposed and one has questioned the inclusion of this at ITN/C based purely on notability).   The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know we're not counting !votes, but you do realise that the ratio for retention in this discussion is 2:1. The rationales of those opposing removal (e.g. coverage in normal media) are valid so there is no clear reason to disregard the majority in the actual notability discussion. However the article doesn't look likely to get updated so the point will likely be moot for this year. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's 4-6 and I don't care how it finishes, but it does make Wikipedia look entirely stupid if we have an ITN/R that is currently being rejected on notability grounds as much as update grounds. It's a joke.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4? Anyway, I think that the participation numbers here are generally to low. As "no consensus" equals "remove" was opposed I think we should consider some form of relisting procedure. Perhaps using RFCs to increase participation if initial discussions are closely divided would be a possibility. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5 now, Donnie Park, me, Medeis, Hot Stop and Nelijack. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. Forgot the nom. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The mockery is the colossal wall of text which grew inside that nom. --IP98 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support There are two reasons why I believe these shows should not be on ITN/R. The first is that their notability depends upon the particular products etc announced at them, which will vary from year to year. That means they should be considered on a case-by-case basis at ITN/C. I think people have been losing sight of the fact that ITN/R is only for events that will always meet the importance criterion. The second is that I am not a fan of blurbs about things opening. They convey little newsworthy information and, in my opinion, do little to serve the stated purposes of ITN, particularly as there is likely to be little to report on at the beginning of the event (when most of the noteworthy stuff hasn't happened. What we have to evaluate the importance of it not the International CES or the EEE, but the fact that the expo has opened. I am not convinced that is something so important that it should get an automatic pass on the importance criterion. Neljack (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, a procedural point - this is framed as a remove proposal, but since we are revising the list at the moment it would seem to make more sense to treat it as a discussion of whether these events should be included on the new list. This is significant because if there is no consensus, it would not be removed if it is a remove discussion but it would not be added to the new list if it was a discussion for that purpose. So if the discussion resulted in no consensus and it was treated as a remove discussion and not removed, then we would inevitably end up revisiting the matter for the new list, because no consensus would result in a different default for that purpose. Neljack (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll consider it discussed and not accepted for the new list. The new list will probably be completed before the next E3. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. This item was discussed and included previously. There is no consensus to remove, as this was a remove proposal, so the item stays. The "new list" is to deal with those items where were added without discussion at the initiation of ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the new list is a completely new list - it's not just for reviewing those items that were added without discussion. See the proposer's statement here: . Neljack (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That proposal got one support !vote. Since then the proposer has been working off the items which were blindly added at the start. Further, no one can seem to agree when to remove an item from ITN/R. This no consensus to remove is exactly that, no consensus to remove. --IP98 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Update this year's E3 will not be featured at ITN despite being ITN/R, the discussion there being closed, not simply on "quality" grounds. Questionable that an item that can't be voted onto the main page in a free vote should be in ITN/R. Also worth noting that E3 has never appeared as an ITN item, so how or why people think it should be an ITN/R, I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply  By "No consensus to post", let me clarify that this means that there was no consensus that the article met the updated article criterion with a high quality update (not about notability). --IP98 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, the show (at least, E3 here) was certainly notable. Part of the reason may have been the switch to this venue to challenge the ITN/R. Irregardless, as long as being on ITN/R is not a guarantee of posting across the board, pending all proper article updates and consensus at ITN/C, it's not a big issue it wasn't posted. --M ASEM (t) 20:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Four clear oppositions to this at ITN/C were on notability grounds, not lack of article quality. Closure of that ITN/C on other grounds is fantasy I'm afraid.  This is not worthy as ITN/R, as ITN/R is entirely about just checking article quality, nothing else.  Otherwise it's just the same as ITN/C.  And it's never been an ITN article in any case.  Incidentally, I don't think anyone said it wasn't "notable" per se, just not notable enough for ITN/R or ITN/C for that matter.  No-one's nominated it for deletion (yet)...  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN/C re-opened. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Electronic Entertainment Expo 2011 was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 11 June 2011. For the discussion, see here. Funny  Pika! 04:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No sign of the 2012 or 2013 being posted though.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question to TRM Hopefully you'll be checking every ITN/R that was previously discussed and accepted and procedurally nominating then? Sounds like a magnificent idea to me. Of course, we'll need to come to some agreement on a removal process for items which were previously discussed and included. You'll of course be starting that process as well? --IP98 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wish to have an off-topic discussion with me personally, I suggest you use a talk page? Thanks!  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're happy with the above mentioned items remaining in the ITN/R or do we have go through this tedium each time? I'd like to understand your position. --IP98 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "tedium"? Oh.  Perhaps you should find other things to do rather than just ITN if you think that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm merely trying to understand your position: if every previously nominated and agreed upon item at ITN/R should be revisited, or if it will be on an ad-hoc basis. I quite enjoy the ITN process, but thank you for your kind suggestion. --IP98 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just a mere contributor. I can't decide on your behalf if "every previously nominated and agreed upon item at ITN/R should be revisited". What's your opinion on that?  My point of view is (and was) that we should wipe ITN/R clean and start again.  That way you have (a) clear, defined consensus for those items to be included and (b) none of these dubious hangovers from time gone by where anything seemed to go.  I think I tried to start ITN/R again but it was shot down.  So now we have the situation where we bumble along and get nowhere slowly.  I'll just get back to editing mainspace articles until this circus resolves itself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that this item was previously discussed and adopted, but that you're re-nominated it for removal, I'm just trying to ascertain if you'll be doing that for every item which was discussed before being added to ITN/R. Will there be some regular interval? How often will items which had consensus for addition be re-considered for removal? --IP98 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon? Why would you think I need to answer to you? I can nominate anything I like for removal from ITN/R, particularly those items which don't even make it through ITN/C on notability grounds.  I'll be doing it entirely at my own discretion.  Thanks for asking though!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Insufficient really. If you're looking to make sure ITN hasn't got ITN/R items which have failed to gain consensus on ITN/C, then others need to be removed according to your criteria I'm afraid. Heaven help us if someone nominates a new jet airplane again. --IP98 (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, stop creating a wall of text here. It's not required and not helping the community.  Once again, if you need to discuss something with me, you know where my talk page is.  Your sarcasm and hyperbole is duly noted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN/R should be a point where the fundamental aspects of whether a recurring event should be in ITN is discussed such every time that event recurs, we don't have to do the tedium of discussing the fundamentals of why that event is included in the first place (as this discussion basically ended up as). That leaves ITN/C to discussion where the specific instance of the event on its own qualifies, based on the starting assuming that as an ITN/R, its inclusion is generally appropriate pending all other details (article in shape, appropriate sources, etc.) Otherwise, every time that same event comes up again, ITN/C has to go through the re-iteration of the fundamental arguments, and that just wears down on everyone. --M ASEM (t) 16:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (a) anyone can nominate any article at ITN/C. (b) ITN/R is intended to be just a "check the update is "adequate"" (whatever that means) and to entirely disregard arguments that the candidate isn't newsworthy. The most recent E3 nomination had at least five people opposing its listing on ground of non-newsworthiness.  It hasn't been posted.  That undermines the purpose of ITN/R, doesn't it Masem?  We also have had other ITN/Rs that have not featured at ITN ever.  That's why ITN/R needs a shake-up.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN/R is not a rubber stamp pending article updates to posting at ITN, otherwise what's the point of the ITN/C aspect? For recurring events, ITN/R is there to serve as a means to split the discussion of whether the general event on its recurring cycle should be considered as ITN (as part of ITN/R), and the specific instance of that event. Taking this trade show thing, the consensus seems to be "keep it on here", so that every time CES or E3 comes up again in the future, we're not discussing the appropriateness of the general purpose of these events at ITN/C. That doesn't rubber stamp the events even with good article updates - if nothing really happens at those shows, then ITN/C can say "sure, that trade show is ITN/R, but it's not really notable this year, lets pass."  It avoids wasting time discussing the appropriate of the trade show in general at ITN/C by saying that that it is a recurring event that may be post-worthiness, but needs the final ITN/C approval to go through on the specifics of that event. Note that this should apply to any event on ITN/R, in that even if the article's in shape, consensus can still !vote to not post due to various reasons.  --M ASEM  (t) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-read ITN/R: "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur" i.e. they need nothing than the usual (mysterious) update quality to qualify. ITN/R is exactly a rubber stamp on notability.  This year's E3 was rejected on "importance" grounds, thus undermining its place at ITN/R.  Nothing more to say.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the E3 article should have been posted, by that logic - as the article (after a bit) was ready to go and E3 is a listed ITN/R. Yet its inclusion was argued at ITN/C and rejected and not because the article wasn't ready. Ergo, you can't have it both ways, nor do I think as I've seen in the past it is treated as a rubber stamp. I do believe that having ITN/R cuts out 90% of "why is this important" debate and simplifies it to discussing the specific instance and issues with the article itself, which is a huge time saver, and important. But not a rubber stamp as you might think. Further, I've no problem post-ITN/C discussing if the ITN/R item really belongs on ITN/R (that's what this talk page is for). But if the item is on ITN/R, and you're claiming that ITN/R is a rubber stamp, then E3 should have been posted per your logic, and that's what I think is wrong here. Practically, ITN/R is not treated 100% as a rubber stamp nor should it be. --M ASEM (t) 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the wording at ITN/R needs rephrasing. Your perception of ITN/R is that it's simply a list of articles we should consider for ITN/C, and I agree with that.  But there's a belief that ITN/R means "post regardless, as long as the [mysterious] update criteria are met".  Time to either update the words at ITN/R, or re-factor it entirely to be "items you may think be worth nominating".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do believe it needs rewording to reflect actual practice. Ignoring the normal checks of a good blurb and an updated article (required in any ITN/C), stating that an item is an ITN/R means that the ITN/C process should focus solely on that instant of the event, which, in the case of the E3, it did (at least, a good chunk did), and not get into the weeds about why that ITN/R item is listed (which did also happen for the E3 item). It would help to avoid bias and off-topic parts of ITN/C discussions. --M ASEM  (t) 20:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, we need to counter the perception that ITN/R means "guaranteed main page per the [mysterious] update quality". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page before being posted. That's on WP:ITNR. I read that exactly as "guaranteed main page with quality update". How could it not mean that? What's the point of ITN/R if it doesn't mean that? If the update quality criteria is mysterious to you, please feel free to put forth suggestions for codifying it. --IP98 (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, what is the point of ITN/R. But sorry, perhaps you're discussing this with Masem who has suggested we rephrase it to "reflect actual practice", as in this case, where the E3 wasn't listed on grounds of no consensus of acknowledged notability, not the quality of the article.  Feel free to put forth codification suggestions!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The E3 wasn't listed on grounds of article quality. The admin who closed that discussion acknowledged the same. By your own reasoning, opposes at that discussion were automatically invalid on the grounds that the item was already on ITN/R. They can be disregarded just as those who opposed some beer sponsored rugby match. You're proposing a radical position here: that we need to counter the perception that ITN/R means "guaranteed main page per the [mysterious] update quality" contrary to the stated purpose of ITN/R, and that we can't have anything which might be considered free advertising at ITN, and yet you champion a beer sponsored rugby tournament. I'm unable to understand your motivations. --IP98 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article had at least four opposes based on lack of notability. Go back and count them if you missed that.  It wasn't related to article quality.  Sorry you got that impression.  And sorry, are you trying to equate a "trade fair" where a 100k people turn out which is entirely designed to sell computer games with a sporting event where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people from all across Europe turn out to watch, that happens to be sponsored?  Is that your position?  (Of course, they don't advertise during Superbowl [how many breaks?], or the World Series or during NHL Finals, or the NBA Finals do they?! They just have the name in the title, right?)  I'm unable to understand your misunderstanding.  Looks like I'm not alone in questioning the "sacrosanct" position of ITN/Rs either.   The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggested change: Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN every time they occur . However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page to review the importance of the specific occurrence of the item before being posted. --M ASEM (t) 20:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the essence of your reword is correct, ITN/R really shouldn't be a "free pass", but a list of "most likely to be accepted" articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me pop this out to a new top-level section, for more discussion. --M ASEM (t) 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support for removal - I do think we need more trade and industry stories, but I'm not convinced that these are the ones to pick. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you suggest some? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if having a link to a trade show article which may contain a link to a manufacturer article which may contain a link to a product article which our readers might be interested in is considered "free advertising", then certainly corporate sponsored sporting events are also free advertising on Wikipedia. Will The Rambling Man be nominating the Heineken Cup and the Barclays Premiere League for removal as well? We can't have any dastardly free advertising at ITN. --IP98 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, I'm just trying to understand how far this goes. Does any article which may mention a corporate entity or product not qualify for a link on the main page because of "free advertising"? That's the reasoning you've used to suggest this (previously nominated and accepted) ITN/R item be removed, so I want to know how far that goes. Should the Barclays EPL be removed? Can we even mention the A350 on the mainpage, or is that advertising for Airbus? Where is the line? I'm trying to understand. --IP98 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, this is becoming disruptive User:IP98, if you have something practical you'd like to discuss with me, use my talkpage, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, you've proposed an item be removed on the grounds that it's "free advertising". I think it's very relevant to this discussion if you feel that any mention of a corporate sponsored event would qualify as "advertising". This is important for understanding the implications of this nomination. It isn't disruptive, and it isn't an item for your talk page. --IP98 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, this is becoming disruptive User:IP98. You're creating a wall of text, making a mockery of this discussion, using sarcasm (although you claim you never do). I'm not prepared to engage with you any further, thanks!  If you have issues regarding corporate sponsorship of the "Premiere [sic] League" etc, create a new thread to do so. You're really trying to flog something that's not worth flogging.  This year's E3 article was rejected on grounds of its insignificance.  You thought it was worth a free pass every year.  We disagree.  Get over it.  Now I'll get back to improving articles and you can continue doing whatever it is you do here.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to engage me further, then that means you'll stop moving my inquiry and slightly expanding your own reply, giving the false impression that I've left three notes here and that you've only replied once, rather than the fact that three times you've moved my comments, and utterly refused to reply to a reasonable request: what constitutes free advertising on Wikipedia (a horse you've flagged a few times above), and what doesn't? Again, you've indicated that you won't answer that question, or engage me further, so I expect that maybe this time my remarks won't be vandalized by User:The_Rambling_Man. --IP98 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've engaged with those who pose useful questions and make reasonable remarks. Your sarcasm has been noted.  (By the way, you "flog" a horse, not "flag" it).  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no sarcasm here TRM, just a legitimate inquiry. Pease excuse my typo, and thanks for pointing it out. It was a relevant and important typo, and your revealing it to me was extremely helpful. So then, what is "free advertising" on WP and what isn't? What what do you mean by "whatever it is you do here" anyway? --IP98 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. As I said, off-topic discussions can be held at my talkpage.  Please move on now and help improve Wikipedia;  this discussion really isn't doing that, as I'm sure you're aware.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal per Hot Stop.  Spencer T♦ C 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)