Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 15

The Boat Race
Some people mentioned The Boat Race in the discussion of the college football championship at WP:ITN/C, pointing out that it is a competition between university clubs and is primarily of interest only in the United Kingdom. Looking at all the things at WP:ITNSPORTS, it does seem to stand out as different. Everything else there seems to be either a major international competition, or the championship of a top level national professional league, or the most prestigious events in a professional sport. The Boat Race seems to be the only thing there that is neither professional nor international in nature. The Boat Race also seems to differ from the other entries in that it is a competition between two specific universities, while all the other listed events determine who is the best in the world or the best in a nation at a sport. While I do understand that it is very heavily watched in the United Kingdom, it just doesn't seem to have the same degree of importance as most of the other ITN/R sports events. I'm therefore proposing that The Boat Race be removed from ITN/R. Calathan (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing my own support for my proposal. When I posted this, my concern was that culturally significant events in different countries be treated equally.  However, on reflection, I think that the best solution isn't just to get rid of one because another was disallowed, but to allow them all.  If something is important to the people in one country, we should post it, and who cares if it isn't of interest to everyone else.  I really do think The Boat Race, and college football and college basketball, and anything else that is a big event in one country should be posted. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal. This was just added in May of last year. There are no requirements that an event be professional or international in nature; we discourage the latter on the ITNC page as we post many single-country events("do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one"). I'm not aware of any professional rowing competitions that could be posted, nor any international ones aside from the Olympics, and even if there was one it doesn't get the attention of this race. Further, it does get some worldwide attention and participation; if the viewership just in the UK was spread out among several countries, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.  Over 200,000 people watch it live as well, how many events can you say that about? 331dot (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While there aren't requirements that an event be professional or international in nature, we should only be posting the most significant events. The argument that something restricted to only one country is less significant is a valid argument, and that position is regularly brought up in ITN/C discussions, suggesting that the page instructions not to make that argument don't represent an actual consensus.  Also, it only gets 200,000 people watching it live because it is held in a river where anyone can walk up and see it, not in a stadium with limited seating and where you have to pay for admission.  Plus, the argument that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the viewership were spread out among multiple countries is totally irrelevant, since the viewership isn't spread out among more countries.  Obviously it would be more important if many countries cared about it.  However, other countries don't really care about it, which is one of the main reasons why I'm saying it isn't significant enough to be ITN/C ITN/R. Calathan (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "ITNR" because this is the talk page for that. What is your definition of "the most significant events"?  Regarding attendance, an event followed by millions shouldn't be penalized because many of those people are in a single country. As stated on the ITNC page. "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one".  We post many single country events; if you want a restriction against such postings, please propose one.  Further, there are very few events where that many people gather to see it live, regardless of paid admission or not. "Not caring" about it is not an argument, as there are people who don't care about the Super Bowl, World Series, Olympics, and even US Presidential elections- all of which are posted.  Part of the mission of both ITN and Wikipedia is to educate people about things like this. This is a significantly covered, notable cultural event. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed my typo. Thanks for pointing it out.  Anyway, the college football and college basketball championships have been repeatedly rejected from appearing at ITN based primarily on the argument that they are only of interest to Americans.  This is despite the fact that they are watched by tens of millions of people and receive extensive news coverage extending over many weeks.  I think the position that we should cover things of great interest to one country is reasonable, and I also think the position that we should only cover things of international interest is reasonable.  However, of those two positions, the latter is the one that the majority seem to support (despite the page instructions saying otherwise), at least based on the college football/basketball discussions.  If you feel strongly that things specific to one country should be at ITN/R, then please bring that up the next time one of these college sports discussions happens at ITN/C (which they inevitably will . . . someone seems to nominate at least one of the two of football/basketball every year). Calathan (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support removal. It's an amateur competition between two schools. To quote some of those who opposed the recent college football nomination "nobody outside the UK would understand why this is even remotely important," "I get that it is a massive deal for some people who follow this single country amateur sport, but that doesn't translate into being relevant to the front page of a general purpose encyclopaedia," "I have trouble believing this is serious," "one-country competitions really don't deserve to be featured here," "this British shit cannot go on the main page," "amateur sport, limited interest." Which of those arguments wouldn't apply in this case?   -- Calidum  13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not featuring one-country competitions would mean the upcoming Super Bowl XLIX would not be posted. We feature many single-country events. Someone believing the nomination or entry is not serious is not relevant, nor is people not understanding why something is important; that's the purpose of the article itself(to educate) and the discussion process.  "British shit" doesn't even merit a response.  200,000+ people in person and millions on television is hardly "limited interest". 331dot (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless gaelic football is removed this should be kept at ITNR. Rowing is an olympic sport, and this is the only event featured here. Gaelic football is not olympic but it is featured here. Nergaal (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Inter-varsity rowing is not an Olympic sport, however. Formerip (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would probably support removing Gaelic football as well. While it is popular in its home country, it does seem like the entry on the list that has the least popularity and significance on a worldwide basis other than The Boat Race. Calathan (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Very interesting that The Rambling Man used the pro-NCAA arguments to get The Boat Race listed here in the first place, and yet he opposes listing the NCAA events. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You guys do realize that the only way college football and basketball are ever going to make it, there's something similar to it that's being posted, right? #bringbackhurlingtoITNR – H T  D  15:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * College football and basketball get enough publicity in the United States that it is refreshing to come to Wikipedia and see something else. If we are going to feature those sports, why not other college sports and women's college sports?  It's just a slippery slope and the easiest thing to do is draw the line. I would support removing some of the niche professional sports that have very small audiences and receive hardly any news coverage, but that's another discussion for another day. The Boat Race should stay because it's the highest level of competition; there isn't any higher level of this sport that I'm aware of. As for "inter-varsity rowing is not an Olympic sport",  the Yale varsity team went to the Olympics and won gold in 1924 and 1956.  We still cover the NBA even though basketball is an Olympic sport. I don't see the difference. Jehochman Talk 16:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This. While there is the Olympics, the boating events are trivial elements of that and rarely get significant coverage compared to some other specific events; Boating like the Boat Race is a sport primarily limited to universities, and this seems to be the highest caliber match for it. --M ASEM (t) 16:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why college football and basketball but no others? Because the NCAA championships in gridiron football and men's basketball are majorly huge deals (as evidenced by ratings, TV contracts, etc.) and the other college sports are not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Supposedly the highest level of the sport of rowing is the Olympics. Fun fact: at the same time the Boat Race was being discussed at ITNR, the Olympic ice hockey final was also being discussed there, and it was defeated. I dunno if there are any "major" differences between varsity and Olympic rowing, but the differences between college and professional American football (and basketball) are well documented. – H  T  D  16:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fun fact - the Boat Race was discussed in April 2014, the hockey discussion was in February 2014. You may have been thinking of the 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game, which was discussed around the same time as the boat race and which was posted. BencherliteTalk 20:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal Why do we need these minor events on ITN/R? Whether a minor event like this is posted should depend on the quality of the update, significance of the events that occurred that occasion, and amount of other important news stories at the time. Items on ITN/R are considered to have always satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN. That does not seem to be the case here, as evidenced by this divided discussion. The next time this event occurs, feel free to nominate it under the normal process. Mamyles (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain how an event watched live by over 200,000 people and watched by millions, with an extensive history, is a "minor event". 331dot (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not necessarily against posting this to ITN. It has been posted before, and will likely be posted again. However, I don't think that this meets the criteria in ITN/R as always satisfying the importance criteria for inclusion to ITN.
 * As a comparison (though viewership is not a requirement for ITN or verification of importance), 15 million viewers is less than the number of viewers the college football Sugar Bowl had on January 1st. The Rose Bowl also had more viewers. I would not support a nomination of either of those results, even considering that viewership level, unless there was something extraordinary that year. They are minor events. The Boat Race more so, since it is a competition between just two schools and not even a tournament final, much less a national final. Given that there is an extensive history, Boat Race would likely be deserving of a recurring spot in On This Day. Mamyles (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I'm afraid. The event is hosted annually (as it has been on and off since 1829).  OTD is not the place for recurring sporting events which have different results every year.  That's what ITN is about.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The founding of the race would qualify as an OTD item, at least in my opinion. The results would be in the linked article, not necessarily in the OTD text itself. Mamyles (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Why would a sporting event which is broadcast in 160 countries and watched by 7 million local television viewers and 250,000 live  viewers be OTD?  I'm afraid you're not really making sense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support removal using immediate pointed revenge strike by disgruntled editors I don't need this dramafest in my life. We'll go through it all again in April when the 161st Boat Race takes place, so there's no need to prolong the agony here.  Those individuals who harp on about "this wasn't posted so that can't be posted" when comparing completely different items are barking up the wrong tree altogether, but what do I expect from a readership that's more than 50% American?  Of course they want their minority sports represented, who wouldn't?  And then we move, inevitably, onto the money.  Who cares?  Then the back-handed digs at "the Commonwealth".  And the "just two schools rowing".  It's all a little bit too much really.  I opposed this playoff nonsense because the blurb was so unclear to me and presumably others as to its significance (and still is) that it shouldn't be posted.  Then come the stats, ooh, 30 million watched the playoff.  So what?  America's a big country, it has a lot of people watching a lot of televised sport.  I'll be glad to see the Boat Race removed because, as Howard The Duck has stated, this is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  Sideline the "minority" sports (some of which are broadcast in 160 countries and watched by 250,000 live and 10% of the population of the country it's taking part in, if you really keep dreaming of stats) and live with the consequences.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't say I blame TRM for feeling that way.331dot (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, you obviously care a lot about The Boat Race (based on a quick check of your talk page, which currently mainly consists of replies about your nominations of Boat Race articles for GA status). I also can tell that you are upset by a perceived anti-British or pro-American bias.  However, I too feel a strong bias when I see people rejecting college football or college basketball with words like "American Shit" or saying "of course" it shouldn't be posted (and those sort of comments come up every time they are nominated, not just this time).  You mention that the boat race is watched by 10% of the British population, but seem to not care that 10% of the American population watches the college football final.  You don't seem to care that college football and college basketball are major cultural institutions in the US, that they get major news coverage for many months, that people really care about them here.  I understand and accept that The Boat Race is a major cultural event for British people, even though I don't understand why (the same is true for The Ashes for that matter . . . I really don't get cricket at all, but I do recognize that other people care about it).  Can't you please accept that the same is true for college football and college basketball in the US, that these are big events that we really care about, even if you don't understand why we care about them.  Can't you see that these events aren't so different in terms of cultural importance, and recognize that you are being hypocritical?  I'm not asking for The Boat Race to be removed from ITN/R out of spite, all I'm asking for is consistency.  Either being a culturally significant event in one country is enough, or it isn't, and we shouldn't be treating each country differently.  Can't you please just allow my country's events to be treated the same as yours? Calathan (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't "care a lot about The Boat Race", I have an interest in increasing the coverage of it and making each article as good as I can. I recognise that most Americans will never see the significance, even though two of their own Ivy League universities try to replicate the contest every year.  I recognise that it's a contest between two "schools" (as you insist on calling them), but generally the crews contain international-class rowers from around the world.  This removal nomination is purely a revenge strike, it's as plain as the nose on your face, which you're now spiting as the removal of such will intractably set a precedent to disallow other "minority" sports events (which are broadcast in 160 countries).  The Boat Race is not "for British people", it's a global phenomenon.  College football is not a global phenomenon, but it does have serious local support in terms of viewership and money.  So what?  This is "In the news" not "In the Financial Times".  I completely accept that a portion of American society cares about college football.  But I cannot accept that it is significant enough to warrant posting on the main page of a global English language encyclopedia.  This removal will, it appears, will become an unhealthy precedent demonstrating that all these kinds sports should be rejected at ITN.  And for that, I'm sad.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic with your position on this issue, but can you see how someone reading your above post might not be able to square your position on this with your position on college football being posted? I would add that I don't think the use of the term "schools" is a sleight against the universities involved in the Race, in the US it is common to refer to a university as a "school". 331dot (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really too fussed. Over the last nine or ten years, it's become obvious to me that niche items which have global interest will be overlooked by American items which have introspective interest.  My vote stands, remove the BR, and reject it in April, it's not that important.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to reply that 331dot is right about "schools" being a common way to refer to universities in the US ("college" is also commonly used to refer to universities in the US). Though I can't speak for them, I would assume that the people who used the term "schools" didn't mean it as a slight. Calathan (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I refer to my own alma mater university as a "school" in colloquial conversation, and do not mean any offence by the term. Additionally, my support for removal of this from ITN/R is also not a slight at any particular editor, nor reactionary of any comments (I was neutral for the recent football nomination). Mamyles (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn my own support for my proposal above. After seeing your comments, I reflected on what I really thought about the situation, and personally I think it is fine for everything of great interest to one country to be posted.  However, I still hope you realize how biased your comments are.  The points you bring up in favor of The Boat Race, and the points you reject in favor of college football, aren't in any way stronger than each other.  I have no idea how many countries the college football championship is broadcast in, but I'm sure its a lot.  Is the game widely watched and widely talked about in most of those countries . . . well no, I bet it isn't.  I'm sure the same is true for the Boat Race, where it is available lots of places, and in many of those countries rowing fans will watch it, but only in Britain is it a big event.  In both cases though, that's irrelevant.  The reason these events should be covered at ITN is because they are a big news story in their country (as you say, this is "In the news", after all).  Can't you see that your comments aren't driven by any true differences, but by the fact that one thing is yours, and the other isn't.  I understand that in many places on Wikipedia there may be a bias towards American subjects, because a lot of the contributors are American.  But that is no reason to respond with bias of your own.  Please, just realize that what you have been saying is total hypocrisy, and please try to accept that something you don't personally understand can still be important. Calathan (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough of the personal attacks, let's keep the nomination for removal open as your pointed closure statement is beyond the pale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to offend, and I'm sorry if my comments upset you. I don't think you are being intentionally biased, and I'm not accusing you of any intentional wrongdoing, but I do think you are subconsciously biased.  To me, your comments are hurtful, and come off as a personal attack on me, though again I don't think you meant them to be.  All I'm asking is that you please think deeply about what you are saying, and keep an open mind about what others are saying. Calathan (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have and I've explained plenty of times. Your comments don't upset me, they simply disappoint me.  What I haven't done is suggested that others have spoken with "total hypocrisy" nor have I suggested that anyone doesn't "personally understand" the issue at hand.  You need to think more clearly before making such charges.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The proposer of the idea being discussed has withdrawn their proposal; perhaps this should be closed. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Now we're here, let's get it sorted once and for all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep listed per my previous comments at ITNC and ITNR. To start with, given the number of international-level rowers (including Olympic and World Championship medallists) who compete (some moving to England to study just to be able to compete in the Boat Race), to say that it is a "amateur competition between two schools" rather misses the point. It was first held in 1829 and has been held virtually every year since the 1840s. It has been televised since before World War II and has been the subject of significant competition between the BBC and ITV to broadcast it - if it was just of interest to boaties, or to Oxbridge graduates, it wouldn't be covered. Despite or perhaps because of its status, it is the most high-profile rowing race and so deservedly it is the only rowing item at ITNR. (In the UK at least, interest in rowing even at the Olympics has depended more on who's in the boat with the best chances of winning, so that in the days of Redgrave and Pinsent for example attention would follow them from the fours to the pairs and back). And while it's a rowing race between two universities rather than two countries, if any two countries, or even two other universities, can set up an annual rowing challenge that gets similar national and international coverage and interest (not just in one country or among a small group of alumni, of course), I'll support that for ITNR too. It's worth pointing out that Trenton Oldfield chose to disrupt the 2012 race for his ill-defined protest against whatever it was because he knew he would get massive publicity for doing so, rather than (say) interrupting the Oxford-Cambridge football match or even a Premier League football match. Let's avoid the sour grapes and the tit-for-tat comparisons of apples and concrete blocks. BencherliteTalk 20:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't understand. Nor do they bother trying. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So I guess my support for posting The Boat Race is chopped liver? 331dot (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if you believe that you are the "They" I noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No delete there's too much deletionism on ITN Sports. College football championships are obviously ITNR, the sides are roughly equal (in numbers of Wikipedians and vociferousness), therefore the Boat Race is approximately equal significance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin requested. I again call for this to be closed by an uninvolved party, as the nominator has withdrawn their proposal(which I support) and TRM only seeks to take the discussion and use it as a platform to make a point. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No I don't. I seek to continue the discussion so we don't do it all over again in April when the woodwork dwellers come back out to whinge about "two English schools in canoes".  How pathetic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that why you said "Support removal using immediate pointed revenge strike by disgruntled editors"? You'd rather pull TBR from ITNR rather than permit American college football from being posted even though you actually support posting TBR. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The two items are conflated. This nomination is nothing more than a pointed revenge strike by someone who has no idea about the Boat Race, its history and its cultural significance, its international flavour, its global audience, etc etc, but that's evidenced by many of the less-educated commentators (e.g. it's a canoe race).  I'd rather pull The Boat Race so I don't feel obliged to go over this ground again and again and again with people here who don't even do any research or reading into it.  It's a pointless pursuit.  And there's nothing about me "permitting" anything.  You should rephrase that.  And re-read, I stated clearly several times that I objected to the college football story blurb because it wasn't meaningful to anyone outside college football.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel better you can substitute "see" for "permit". If people aren't doing research on this subject, I think their opinion should be weighed accordingly; but this is hardly the only issue where that happens. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "If it makes you feel better"? I came to expect much more from you 331dot.  Ignorance is a blight on the encyclopedia that should be disallowed.  We can educate as much as we possibly can, but when opposition includes describing the Boat Race as a race between "canoes" there seems little point in trying to help those deliberately inclined to ignorance.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for giving offense; to me the two words in that context were somewhat synonymous. That's why I worded my reply that way. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If only the nominator had spoken up in favour of removing the listing from ITNR and had then withdrawn his suggestion, then a quick closure might be warranted. But in circumstances where others (leaving aside TRM) have supported its removal, then it makes sense to get a conclusion based on consensus rather than speed. Otherwise, as TRM says, this will just come up again in a few months. And I say this as one of those who supports the Boat Race remaining ITNR. BencherliteTalk 22:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving your view; what mattered to me most was someone heretofore uninvolved making a determination. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - I've reverted the close. Unilaterally closing a discussion with this many contributors in the first couple days results in the appearance of a SUPERVOTE and doesn't appear to be in the best interest of the encyclopedia being able to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS.  Feel free to add a comment that you think it should be closed or you withdraw or whatever, but it's inappropriate to dictate to others that they can't discuss the topic any more. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 02:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I closed it because the nominator withdrew, there was a request to close this before tempers flared, the removal "votes" are exceptional weak (Essentially saying "American football wasn't posted, so this should be removed"), and because it was pretty obvious no consensus to remove can come from a discussion provoked by emotion about an unrealted item. But, by all means, waste tons of time on pointless bickering about American football not being posted if you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So... has anyone made the 4 billion/400 million/100 million global audience of The Boat Race argument yet, of which 10 million is from the UK? – H T  D  02:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone made a > US population one and a 7M/15M domestic/total one on ITNC. But,
 * I brought that up because that should be what sets up The Boat Race from the NCAA championships: "global audience" (the basketball championship could arguably claim "some global audience", but not 4 billion/400 million/100 million). The Rambling Man supplied reference for this supposed "global audience", plus the domestic audience. And the only way the numbers would stack up is if it's twice as popular in places such as China and India than in its British homeland. – H T  D  03:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The 4 billion was a joke by you and not a reference, right? That is just ludicrous. There aren't that many members of the ape superfamily Hominoidea in the Commonwealth. There aren't that many non-rural humans on Earth. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the May 2014 discussion, it was that suggested that the "potential audience" of 4 billion. – H  T  D  04:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Automatic inclusion for certain Recent Death candidates
Hello all. An interesting side discussion from the RD nomination of Charlie Sifford got me wondering if certain aspects of a person's life could automatically secure their notability clause for RD. In Sifford's case, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. According to a couple of those discussing this nomination, that alone should have been sufficient to warrant posting, regardless of his other achievements. It got me wondering if there was a case for stating awards or positions that would guarantee posting to RD, as long as article quality was up to scratch, in other words, ITN/R for RD (although not recurring, you get my drift...) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the PMofF should be such a criteria(only if other similar honors from other nations were included) as it was just one indication of his importance but I think there could be a role for such an automatic notability list. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was considered by at least two people to be a sufficient criterion. In any case, it's just an example to test the principle.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just saying that I would be interested in hearing arguments against including that in such a list. It is a good example. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Some other similar criteria (to at least consider) for such an automatic notability list would be having won a Nobel Prize, multiple Academy Awards/BAFTAs/Grammys/etc., the Sakharov Prize, Fields medal, just what I can think of right now. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to resist the temptation to draw up a ITNR-equivalent for RDs. Once one has the PMofF as an automatic RD entrance (subject to updating), then we will end up with calls for the highest awards in all other countries to be treated similarly, with difficulties and complaints in each direction. We had a recent discussion in which someone tried to compare the Order of Canada with some US award (I forget which one) and the only result was that it became clear it was a comparison between apples and concrete blocks, i.e. totally unhelpful and unilluminating.  And once one starts adding prizewinners in various disciplines, including prizes in the entertainment industry, difficulties will merely increase.  Does a two-time Oscar winner for best film editing, or best make-up, or best costume design, get treated in the same way as a two-time winner of the Oscar for best actor/actress?  If not, why not? Would all Grammys count the same? I'd suggest that we keep it as it is - prizes and awards may help to show that the nominee "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" but are not necessary, or sufficient, in that respect. BencherliteTalk 15:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW I agree, but either way this discussion should set a handy baseline for people who simply say "he won the PMoF, so that's enough". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree in general that RD ITN/R items is begging for trouble in terms of nominations. I think it's fair to say in describing what we consider RD importance to list what are common inclusion metrics (former world leaders, winners of specific awards, etc.) but by no means assuredly appropriate for inclusion on importance nor equivalent to what ITNR gives, as a separate concern from the article quality. --M ASEM (t) 21:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting (in other words) a list of suggested notability criteria, instead of automatic criteria? 331dot (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment having said all that, why would we consider it appropriate to give a free pass (i.e. an ITN/R) to a Nobel Prize winner, who will get a blurb, but then not allow that same Nobel Prize winner the freedom of an RD listing? It seems like a curious dichotomy to me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it has to be said that winning a Nobel prize is more of an achievement than dying. Formerip (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. But then why would we put Nobel Prize winners by default on ITN but not list them at RD when they die?  Or perhaps you didn't understand the point of the discussion?  If "X wins the Nobel Prize for Peace" is worth a blurb and maybe a picture at ITN as governed by ITN/R, why isn't the same recipient allowed similar at RD when they die? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Head of state in ITNR
ITNR includes the succession/election of a Head of state, meaning that it is always considered notable. However, in some countries like Greece and Canada the head of state is largely ceremonial, and the Head of government like the Prime Minister controls the executive branch.

If the intended effect of this ITNR section is to post when the position in power of the country changes, it seems that this should be re-worded. My proposal is to change the wording from "Head of state" to only include positions that have substantial constitutional powers. For example, the Prime Minister of Canada would then be ITNR rather than the Governor General of Canada. - Mamyles (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the ITNR should be limited to the head of state that actually has executive power in their country. This doesn't mean the more ceremonial positions can't be nominated, they would just not have ITNR status. --M ASEM  (t) 22:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Governor General of Canada would not be ITNR because they are the representative of the head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) and not head of state themselves.  Prime Minister is not head of state regardless of what powers they hold.  Regarding this proposal, we would then have to get into judgement calls about what "substantial constitutional powers" are.  In the case of Greece, the President of Greece is the commander of the armed forces; is that enough? It also seems that Queen Elizabeth (and most other monarchs) would be excluded from ITNR because her role is largely ceremonial.  Head of states represent their nations; this is why they are ITNR.  331dot (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the intended effect of this ITNR section is to post when the position in power of the country changes...
 * It seems pretty clear to me that the intention of the guidance as it is currently written is that all changes to head of state are ITNR. I'm not sure if I have an opinion about changing it, but what's the argument that it is a bad thing? I'd worry slightly that if we changed it we would end up with a political bias where monarchs would tend to get posted and presidents not. Formerip (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mamyles, would your proposal apply to monarchs who have largely ceremonial powers? Would, for instance, the death of Queen Elizabeth II be ITN/R on your proposal? Neljack (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the Queen does not have substantial constitutional powers, then no. But as it stands, currently the Prime Minister is not ITNR. Perhaps another solution is to add both head of state and government if the head of state has mostly ceremonial powers? It doesn't seem reasonable for us to state here, for example, the monarch of Canada changing is more notable than the Prime Minister, who has a higher profile and actually makes policy decisions. Mamyles (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A change of Prime Minister is not ITNR, but general elections are, which covers it most of the time. I would [ETA: NOT!] necessarily object to adding something like "head of government when not resulting for a general election", though. Formerip (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would keep it as it is. The arguments otherwise would be too subjective and too divisive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There has got to be a way to tweak this to avoid posting unimportant head of state changes that cause divisive arguments at ITN/C. This is something that has been bothering people for a long time, and should not remain unchanged in ITNR. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then suggest an objective criterion that distinguishes between "ceremonial" and "non-ceremonial" heads of state which holds water and you get my support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into it. I wonder; when Manuel Valls became Prime Minister of France a year ago it was nominated but not posted. Anybody know why? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Find the ITN discussion. One imagines it just replicates the concern here: ceremonial. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister of France isn't a ceremonial position, even remotely.
 * I'm not sure that why that wasn't posted is the correct question, though. Was it actually a mistake not to post it? If not, then we have no problem. Formerip (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a problem in general with specifying what kind of political leader changes 'deserve' ITNR coverage and which do not. IMO they happen infrequently enough that a discussion every time doesn't hurt at all, and they should be removed from ITNR altogether. For example a Prime Minister in France and in South Korea both have legitimate executive powers, just not as much as a PM does in Britain or India. There is no easy comparison between the two except that they share the same title. Moreover I'd argue that certain head of state changes, even for relatively important countries like Spain, don't really warrant ITNR coverage as they have next to no political impact even in their own countries, let alone internationally. On another unrelated point, article quality is key. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two potential problems to do with systematic bias in what you are suggesting. Firstly, part of the whole point of having these at ITNR is that it can give countries like Angola or Kuwait or wherever an occasional shot at a blurb that doesn't follow the "12 people die after a tank of slurry catches fire in..." formula. I think it would be a shame to lose that. Secondly, general elections are ITNR, so if we removed other forms of political transition from the list, we would create an obvious skew. Put the two considerations together, and we could well end up with Bhutan deliberately relaxing its health and safety laws just to get on the front page of Wikipedia. Do you really want that on your conscience? Formerip (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest I've also never liked having elections of any sort as part of ITNR. I get that we need regional balance but having potentially hundreds of elections and political transitions eligible for ITNR per year is actually increasing the topical bias of ITN on political subjects. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By my count, National electoral calendar 2015 has ~45 elections, not "hundreds". If that's an average per year, we'd see at least one election in 10 days, assuming all get to be posted (they won't). – H T  D  04:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I will second what TRM says above; changing this is too subjective and divisive. Further, FormerIP's point about each nation getting a shot at a posting is significant too. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the primary argument against changing this section is that it would be too subjective to determine who has "substantial constitutional powers" for some countries. That could be resolved simply by changing Head of state to Head of government in the wording of this section, allowing reliable sources (such as this database from the government of Australia) to confirm who is the "de facto political leader" of a country. This change of phrasing would be the best way to include what most would think of as a country's primary executive policy maker, whether that is a Prime Minister, President, Chancellor, or monarch. If this change were to be made, heads of state successions could still be discussed based on their own merits.

Although, many ceremonial heads of state would still qualify as "always notable" in ITNR because they were elected by a general election. I do not understand how election results, for a position that has almost no power, are especially notable. Who holds a primarily ceremonial position seems rather irrelevant to the news or international politics in general. Perhaps an exclusion should be added to the "results of general elections" section to exclude heads of state.

The point of discussion is to attempt to come to consensus/compromise on divisive issues, so having this conversation is important. Again, my motivation for proposing changes here is that as ITNR currently stands, a change in the primary executive decision maker is not currently included in ITNR for many countries, while relatively insignificant ceremonial positions are included. That does not accurately reflect who is always notable, which is the intention of this page. Mamyles (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to talk about adding changes in heads of government to ITNR we can certainly do so(though many of them are covered by general election posts) but I don't think that should come at the expense of heads of state, which are notable as representing their nations, even if they have little power. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because the head of state is designated the representative for a country does not mean they are the representative. For example, the President of Germany has as one of its duties to "Represent Germany at home and abroad," yet the German official most commonly representing that country is the Chancellor of Germany. In fact, it looks like the Chancellor is the primary representative for meeting with foreign leaders, commenting on world events, and giving speeches about the state of the country. Now the President of Germany may still be notable enough for a blurb, but it is a great example to prove that the head of state is not always the primary representative of the country. Mamyles (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * However, neither is the head of government, as in the case of France, for example. Formerip (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * France is one exception. So it looks like simply changing to use head of government is not such a simple, non-subjective solution. In Russia, the significance of the position actually flip-flops depending on which position Putin is in, so it seems like the notability there is less based on the position's constitutional power than the person himself. So neither changes in the head of state, head of government, nor leader's general election results are always important/notable. Mamyles (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be leading into a "judge on the merits" method, which would mean simply removing the item from ITNR and trusting editors to reach a proper consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After some good examples in this discussion, I agree. It seems best to just remove head of state from ITNR, as there are exceptions to the level of importance with any objective rule we can think of. Status quo is not preferred, since many heads of state are actually ceremonial and not always considered important. Mamyles (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Not always considered important" by whom? There are also systemic bias reasons to draw attention to other, less covered countries(both our own bias and that of the media) Calling for this to be removed outright is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is far more helpful to readers to have these postings than not. 331dot (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then why is head of government "on its own merits"? Why is the more ceremonial post ITNR, and the more powerful post not? Abductive  (reasoning) 17:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most heads of government are posted when general elections are posted (X party, led by John Q. Public, won the election) or are combined with head of state(i.e. President of the United States) so the vast majority of them are already posted. That said I don't necessarily think that heads of government shouldn't be posted or shouldn't be ITNR, only that doing so shouldn't be at the expense of head of state. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

La Liga
I propose adding the Spanish La Liga, as it is one of the top 3 leagues in the world by most accounts, and is certainly of utmost importance in its home country. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support At least as strong a league as the English Premier League. If we have one on ITN/R, we should have the other too. Soccer, like it or not, is the most popular sport in the world by some distance, and I don't think adding this would give it too much representation. Neljack (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. This has previously been discussed (or at least mentioned) in May 2009, March 2011, January 2013 ,and May 2013. We also already have five soccer stories running each year, so I'd be hesitant to support putting another on item on ITNR. My opinion may change, however, depending on how some editors feel about another football match that will without a doubt be nominated on January 12. -- Calidum  04:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In further reflection, I oppose this proposal. There's no reason this can't go through the regular process at ITNC. -- Calidum  18:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Last year, the La Liga was posted as a combo blurb with the Premier League and FA Cup Final(!). 2013-14 had an epic finish though, so it'll be interesting on how things turn out if the final matchday isn't as exciting. – H T  D  18:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support it's apparent that this league attracts the top players in the known universe, such as Messi, Ronaldo, Bale etc. It seems illogical to allow the Premier League a free pass while suggesting La Liga isn't on that level.  We will need to deal with merging blurbs to prevent having too many "end of football season" blurbs inundating ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose not boing ITNR won't prevent it from getting supports at ITNC. There will be some years when there will be so many "X wins championship Y in football" news packed within a couple of weeks that I see no reason to have this ITNR. If it will be notable, people will support it at ITNC. Nergaal (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could do just explain why it's less significant than the Premier League? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is this more important than Bundesliga? I would rather nave none than all 3 at ITNR. Once things get added they never come down. Nergaal (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You tell me. If you'd like to see the Bundesliga champions as ITNR, you're welcome to nominate it. In the meantime, your oppose (including the "boing") is applicable to every single ITN nomination in the history of ITN.  The point of ITNR is to assign significance to those events we deem important, and all we look for is a suitable update.  Thanks!  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support this rather large tournament, in a rather large country, as I believe it will interest many Wikipedians. I would also support merging blurbs if many countries' tournaments end at near the same time. Mamyles (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, as this clearly has more following than some of the listed items in ITNR such as the rugby union club tournaments. – H T  D  11:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose surprise, another soccer item on ITN! Do not withstanding the fact the unlike EPL, La Liga is routinely dominated by two teams, I believe it was established in European Wikipedians v NCAA basketball that before an item can be considered for ITN/R, it must succeed in at least one nomination at ITN/C. --166.173.249.220 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, there is currently no rule for an item to succeed at an ITN/C nomination to be nominated for ITN/R. But denial of an ITN/C item can definitely be used as reasoning for your oppose, if that was the case. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no hard rule that says an item must first have been posted through ITNC before being considered for ITNR, but such a rule does exist as more of a precedent. Regardless, La Liga was posted through ITNC last year. -- Calidum  19:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason it was posted was because for the first time in ages the winner was not Real Madrid or FC Barcelona, and it was a combo blurb, tacked on to the EPL. If this nom is to merge La Liga with the EPL on ITN and post them as a combo blurb, then fine. This nom, as currently written, is to give La Liga it's own standalone blub, which it's never done on ITN/C before. --12.216.96.52 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not only is there too much soccer, there is too much sports, period. I strongly oppose adding any more.  Jus  da  fax   02:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Election of Leaders of the Continental Unions
I would like to propose we consider adding to this of Recurring Items Leaders who assume the 'Chair' of the following organisations: African Union, European Union and Union of South American Nations. I had recently nominated an item but was informed that it does not meet the ITNR criteria. Whilst some of these leaders may not have executive powers; I believe they are the de facto 'face' of these huge organisations and thus represent hundreds of millions of people during their respective tenure. It will also enable the ITN section appear more dynamic and up to date; and thus benefit the readers of the mainpage.
 * Support - as nominator. Ali Fazal (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Defer. Wait for the result of the ITN/C nomination first, which isn't looking good. – H T  D  03:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Defer per HTD. ITNR isn't an end-run around consensus at ITNC. -- Calidum  03:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The deferment appears to me as a Catch-22 situation. That was the reason I asked for it to be discussed here in the first place. At present, consensus at the ITNC appears to be against it; partly as it is not listed in the ITN/R list. Anyways, I thank you both for your prompt comments. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is being opposed at ITNC because it is not ITNR(which is not a valid reason to oppose as stated on that page) but that there is some question as to the importance of the organization. The suggestion here is that it should at least pass ITNC before being considered here. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason why ITNR was brought up in the discussion is because it was tagged as such when it isn't. If it wasn't tagged, it might had not been discussed. As for importance, I guess it's the office, not the organization, per se. EU election results are posted (despite really low interest turnout), while the rotating EU presidency isn't. – H T  D  16:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Daytona 500
I propose that the Daytona 500 should be listed here. The Daytona 500 is the highest-paying and one of the longest-running NASCAR races; it is often referred to as the "Super Bowl of NASCAR." I, along with other editors at the 2015 race's nomination, am somewhat surprised this is not listed here yet as this race is NASCAR's most prestigious by far, similar to the Monaco Grand Prix of Formula 1 or IndyCar's Indianapolis 500, both of which are already listed here. Additionally, the 2013 and 2011 races were successful ITN candidates that made it to the main page, as shown by the banners on their talk pages. With it being at ITN twice in the past four years (and hopefully soon-to-be three of the last five), I don't see why this should not be listed here. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ITNR items are defined as always being important enough to post. Given that two of the last four years were not posted, and that there is currently significant discussion in ITNC over whether this is notable enough, I do not believe this event meets the criteria for ITNR. It can, of course, still be nominated each year under the normal process.
 * Also relevant to this topic is that an event's absence from ITNR is never a valid reason to oppose an ITNC nomination. Nomination discussions are based both on importance and article quality, which changes year-to-year. Don't feel like any event is not notable enough to nominate/post just because it is not here. Mamyles (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * support adding Daytona 500 and dropping the NASCAR Sprint Cup per discussion at ITN/C.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the winner of this race more notable than the winner of the entire series? 331dot (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The winner of this race is certainly more notable than the winner of a typical race. More notable than the champion though? I have to admit, that may or may not true. It's certainly debatable though, so I'm not sure there will be an overwhelming consensus one way or another… --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support replacing Sprint Cup winner with Daytona 500. It terms of cultural significance (which is the only real significance of any sport), it is unquestionable that the Daytona 500 is the more important of the two.  The average non-fan may not even hear the name of the Cup champion, while possibly watching the Daytona 500.  Daytona gets plenty of advertising tie-ins at ordinary stores, "water cooler" talk, and non-sports media news coverage.  The Cup champion being determined gets none of those.  Indeed, NASCAR in general is seen as a advertising negative outside the American south and thus you never see ads with drivers outside of NASCAR programming, except around Daytona time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose don't see any compelling reason beyond an "I like it" argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I hate NASCAR. My support is based on the relative attention paid to Daytona vs. the Cup, not any sort of thing a like or don't like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But using that argument, the relative attention paid to every Formula One Grand Prix would necessitate their inclusion each and every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying every Formula 1 race is more popular than Daytona or that every individual race is more popular than the Formula 1 championship? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying why is one race more important than any other race in a championship? I'd happily remove the Monaco GP from ITNR, it's anachronistic, particularly considering it's typically the worst race of the entire calendar.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of points awarded, it's not. The Daytona 500 awards the same amount of points which are just as valuable to the championship battle as points from any other race. This race, however, is the biggest race of the season in terms of prestige. It draws the most media attention and awards more prize money than any other race, among other things. It's nicknamed "The Super Bowl of NASCAR" for a reason. Hope this helps, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know if I would say I oppose this but I have difficulty with the idea that the winner of the first race of a series is somehow more important than the winner of the entire series. Being the winner of the entire series means one is presumably the best in the sport(or league at least); while winning Daytona might get a lot of attention, it doesn't mean they are the best driver overall. I guess I would have to say that if I was going to support anything here it would be having both(Daytona for its cultural significance and the series for the best driver), not replacing one with the other. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that in terms of skill, winning the championship is a better indicator. This would be equally true in the case of the Indianapolis 500 vs. IndyCar Series (only 500 listed) or Monaco Grand Prix vs. Formula 1 champion (both listed).  So, it (in-sport skill vs. cultural impact) is a valid debate and could go either way.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging who participated in the previous discussion on this topic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I would say the winner of the Sprint Cup Series is more notable than the winner of the Daytona 500. From experience, casual American sports fans would recall more easily the overall winner, though granted that was when Jimmie Johnson won five consecutive years. Daytona 500 is definitely not on the same level of the individual races we have currently listed at ITN/R, so we should leave it to be debated each year and not give it the automatic pass ITN/R provides.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

E-sports
What do people think about eSports on ITN? We have a ton of sports featured at ITNR (some questionable IMHO) but to my knowledge NOT EVEN A SINGLE post has been about eSports. Furthermore, I have a feeling that the AVERAGE folk checking up wikipedia is more towards being of a fan of gaming over actual sports than the average person. And the limited interest doesn't really stand IMO when you look how many gaming events have been covered by say some ESPN channels (compared to I think none when it comes to say Canadian Football).

I proposed to have the 2014 League of Legends World Championship a few months ago and it was shut down for various arguments, but I think if anyone checks the actual viewership numbers (unfortunately available post-factum) I doubt that many voters there would have been against posting an event that gets 27 unique viewers - there aren't this many fans worldwide for either Gaelic, Canadian or Aussie-rules football yet they get an ITNR spot each. Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally am not against internet sports being posted, provided that there is enough attention to the event in the news, and there is an adequate article about the subject. Please keep proposing major events when you see them. These sports are growing in popularity, and while the last nomination did not get consensus to post, it's possible that future discussion will see it through.
 * I do not, however, believe that gaming events are ready to be added to ITN/R. At least not until one has been posted a couple years in a row. Mamyles (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't necessarily thinking about ITNR. But I am curious what sort of threshold would such an event have to pass to get through ITNC? Nergaal (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Boat Race? – H T  D  22:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand you. That is broadcast on some BBC channel and the number of fans is limited to about the city of London. But the event itself is well before computers were invented. Nergaal (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The boat race is competed by amateurs from two schools at not the highest level of the sport of rowing. Your suggestion looks like a world championship of a discipline of a sport where professionals take part. It should pass the boat race threshold. – H T  D  17:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is not a set-in-stone threshold to get through ITNC. It's based entirely on consensus and the posting admin's read of it, which are subjective. An event is more likely to get through if: there is a well-written, updated article; coverage is received by mainstream news sources; the nominator provides a compelling argument for posting; or even if it is during an especially slow news period.
 * Looking back at the nomination, the primary argument against it was that there was only one section in a not very developed article about the tournament. Developing a standalone article for the tournament would help, and could be done readily by copying the style of other tournaments that are posted. Feel free to give notices about a nomination at project pages that have expertise in the subject (like WP:VG). Few of the contributors in that nomination seemed to know what they were talking about. Mamyles (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ISS flights
Looking at the nomination for the recent launch to the ISS(and noting that it wasn't proposed as ITNR), I wonder if we should amend the ITNR listing of "launch of manned orbital spaceflights" to exclude routine flights to the ISS- which technically are manned orbital flights(but I agree should not be posted). Maybe we don't need to, just a thought. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Boat Race, Harvard-Yale Game, criteria for sporting events
Please Remove these two items. There doesn't seem to be clear criteria for which sporting events make it into this page. The previous discussion from the archives does not address some objections I raised. There was much talk about NCAA and such, but the NCAA is a national organization, not a single competition between two university clubs. (1) There is no process for others to compete. These are not tournaments. This is traditionalism and elitism at it's worst. These are exclusive private clubs. (2) It seems to be a personal issue for particular editors, using stats like TV coverage does not help. The same individuals are arguing against other sports also covered on television. So, this TV coverage criterion seems to be quite arbitrary. (3) The focus of the events is regional, not global or even national. There are other longstanding rivalries between university clubs that are not covered in this way. The Boat Race does not include clubs from the rest of the UK. The Harvard-Yale Game does not include clubs from the rest of the United States. Most people don't know. This does not fit the criteria for general interest. 71.114.204.104 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For information, previous discussion that resulted in consensus for inclusion is here: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 13. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, someone was pulling your leg; the Harvard-Yale Game is not on WP:ITNR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just reading the archives and would like to continue this discussion further. Thank you for being helpful.  I may have posted this in the wrong page at first, my mistake; but everyone else seemed to only crack semantic jokes instead of engaging in meaningful debate.  Thanks again.  I'm also reading the discussion from archive 15.   Jeois (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Harvard-Yale is interesting in America, and not ITNR. The Boat Race has a global audience, and is in ITNR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And let's have none of your semantic jokes, Rambler. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wink is as good as a nod.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was more referring to the person who ask where I'd been for 400 years, and when I said he/she was being hyperbolic, the person linked me to a geometric shape Jeois (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is shocking. That's like calling someone a complete square. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My point was that Harvard-Yale is NOT interesting in America. More importantly, please demonstrate how much of the global audience is interested as opposed to some estimate of BBC or ITV media market penetration. Moreover, both these events are pretty much exclusive, private events which do no allow for fair competition. In other words, the participants' merits have more to do with academics and family wealth rather than competitive rowing ability. Jeois (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're saying The Boat Race is a "private event"? lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC) (.... and nothing to do with "competitive rowing ability"? um, I think you need to read up on some of the participants....)
 * Is the Boat Race not American enough for you?? " Are You Not Entertained?" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) There are other issues besides the mechanics and structure of the events themselves. The Boat Race draws wide attention and interest (250,000 watch it live and millions on TV) and is a significant event in the UK. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Boat Race is watched by 250k live, millions in the UK on TV and is broadcast to 10s if not 100s of millions worldwide. The Yale-Harvard canoe trip?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to get personal, I'm not even a natural born American. I understand it may be culturally significant to you personally.  Is that the criteria?  All I'm seeing is British media penetration when I do searches on google.  Besides being elitist, inclusion here of this is also ethnocentric.  --Jeois (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I invite you to nominate comparable events. We can only consider nominations that are made. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Like NCAA Basketball? Like the Stanley Cup?  Like Four Hour Glorification of All Things United Statesion?  Ethnocentricity rules baby.  For what it's worth, the criteria aren't defined by any one single individual, as this is Wikipedia.  Feel free to nominate any item you like that's currently listed at ITNR for delisting.  That's your prerogative.  Here, you're just likely to get indignation and humour in almost equal parts. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll never get indignation from me. And a C-section is nothing to be ashamed of. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing examples of events of national organizations. If it were up to me, those wouldn't be listed as well, but like I said, at least they're national organizations.  If collegiate/amateur rowing in the UK had some kind of league or tournament, and this was the final, then I would have much less of an objection.  Jeois (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You won't be the first to find this anachronistic display of the feudal class system a bit elitist. But in 2012, apparently "They almost took his head off". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be almost as big as fox hunting. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Englishman never enjoys himself except for a noble purpose." - A. P. Herbert. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been scouring the internet to find the source for these claims of global viewership statistics; but so far, every single reference is from British media, and by British, I actually mean English. Besides one or two articles describing how females are allowed to participate this year, there is no coverage.  Females participating is more of a news story than who won if you ask me. Yes, we all know (whichever TV channel managed to secure licensing for broadcast) has a global audience, but that doesn't mean people are watching.  You can cite stats about viewership, but they mean absolutely nothing in this context if you're just going off estimates of how many people receive cable/satellite TV.  This is a joke about goats.  IF you're outside of the UK, and you actually watched this thing, please comment and let us know what you thought.  You do realize it's not a real competition as the same two teams go at it every year as if there aren't other rowing clubs out there.  Let's be completely honest, this is a personal interest story for a few select wiki editors and/or admins.  Jeois (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and a few hundred thousand spectators who went to see it live and a few million who watched in the UK on television and few dozen millions who watched it worldwide and the several thousands of readers who have clicked on the article. Or were you referring to the 2015 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship Game which is currently at ITN which had fewer than 20,000 spectators, was broadcast on ESPN and has had a few hundred readers click on the article?  Let's be completely honest, the stories on ITN are of differing levels of interest to different people.  It really is that simple!  Cheers. P.S. How did you differentiate between British and English media? I'd love to know!  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the bits that are not Welsh, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * ...or Scottish. Or Northern Irish. They actually have tv stations and newspapers in Scotland too, contrary to what some may think. As well as electricity and toilets and stuff. HAdG (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you lot, I was asking Jeois. But thanks for your usual banter.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I also just went and looked at the archived consensus on this item: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 13, and frankly it doesn't look like a consensus to me at all: most of the discussion was a dispute over viewing figures, and the final "consensus" is based on just six views: four "support" and two "oppose". The users opposed cited some very sensible concerns which remained unaddressed on this archived discussion, such as: For all of these reasons, I concur with the user who opened this discussion, and strongly oppose further inclusion of the Oxbridge Boat Race in ITN. I would support including the World Rowing Championships instead. HAdG (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This is the only rowing event on ITN; are we sure this the globally most significant event of that sport? How about the World Rowing Championships instead?
 * 2) This event is only open to an extremely narrow range of participants: students at two universities with notoriously skewed student populations in terms of social extraction. For that reason alone, and quite regardless of viewer figures, this event is unrepresentative of the sport. Accordingly, there is considerable controversy even in host country Britain over the extensive media coverage (see archived discussion).
 * 3) Similar events of long-standing tradition and arguably greater sporting/competitive significance exist in many other countries, and are very poorly reported on the English-language wikipedia. Example: the Regata delle Antiche Repubbliche Marinare in Italy.


 * Moved to the voting section below. Modest Genius talk 21:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This event gets far much more attention and has more of a cultural impact than the World Rowing Championships, which gets little if any attention. (Frankly I didn't even know there was such a thing until recently.) The Olympic competitions might get more attention, but the Olympics themselves already are posted. 331dot (talk)


 * Have we ever posted the Army-Navy Game? That's a 125 year-old college rivalry match of great national interest.  I'll also point out that the presumption is that items are on ITNR because there is established consensus for them to be there.  What's needed is a sufficient number of posts to keep it, otherwise the presumption is in favor of removal.
 * Just my personal opinion but I think the importance of the Army-Navy game has diminished somewhat in recent years, much as the Harvard-Yale game. Please state where that interpretation of consensus for ITNR items is written down or otherwise established. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment if this is to turn into a "remove The Boat Race" from ITN, please format it and formulate it properly before jumping on some kind of half-arsed bandwagon, along with the Yale-Harvard race, which has never been an ITN, let alone and ITNR. Just because you're up in arms over a sporting event which has taken place for 186 years that features world class rowers and is broadcast globally, please do things properly. Suggesting other rowing races should be included in ITNR is fine, but is entirely independent of whether The Boat Race should be there. Think about it people, you're normally a lot more intelligent than this. In fact, suggesting an item that doesn't even have an English-language article for inclusion at ITNR in preference to the Boat Race is symbolic of a complete and unadulterated misunderstanding of what this Wikipedia is all about. In fact, I'll nominate it for removal (again) for you, so you actually make a neutral and sensible proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: re-include EuroBasket
I dunno how was it removed, but after the recent college basketball discussion, it was pointed out that this European championship wasn't on the list. As this has 24 teams participating, the same number with football (and not like "six"), it implies there some interest to this from Europeans. – H T  D  00:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For reference, it was removed after this discussion. I imagine most World Championship feeder events have participation from most nations in their region, regardless of how popular to the sport is.  I would thus like to see a better argument for inclusion than the number of nations sending a team. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting. European Men's Handball Championship which isn't in ITNR, has 16 teams; compare to the 24-team 2015 World Men's Handball Championship where Europe got 12 teams, plus two wild cards because two teams outside of Europe couldn't even be bothered to sent a team after qualification. For a handball-mad continent such as Europe, that's quite a lot. Not quite as many as the UEFA Euros and EuroBasket, which has 24 teams. I believe these two have the most number of participants among continental championships in team sports on Earth. That implies massive interest in the sport on the continent. – H T  D  01:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading the removal discussion, there were two issues: 1) "it's not popular in my country" (I'm willing to bet my life savings that "my country" is the "United Kingdom") and it's a feeder tournament. Guess what, FIBA EuroBasket 2015 has so many interwikis I'm too lazy to count, and I don't think the UK has the final answer on what gets to be popular in Europe. Also, every continental championship that has real qualification is ultimately "a feeder tournament" to something. The EuroBasket won't be a feeder tournament after 2015, so there's that. – H T  D  01:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

General comment concerning ITNRs
A criticism often levelled at ITN is that we don't move along swiftly enough. We are not, and should never become, a news ticker, but there's currently a momentum towards removing items from ITNR rather than adding them. Of course, the net result is that we have a slower turnover at ITN. We currently have five items listed on the main page, two of which are eleven days old, and a push to remove the most recent from ITNR. Perhaps it's yet another one of those times where news is slow, but if we keep going this way, we'll have nothing to report at all, ever, and therefore what's the point in calling it "In The News"? Having more ITNRs would, at least, keep the section turning over, even if it was about netball..... In all seriousness, we should be looking for far more ITNRs than collating megabytes of arguments to remove them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An excellent point, TRM. I agree. I also don't understand the desire to remove what is termed by some "lesser known" sports, which seems to present clear systemic bias issues. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * People want to remove one item, this is the only one that has been nominated for removal in last 6 months, few times even. That's not a momentum. SeraV (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that the problem is with a declining number of quality nominations. Certainly there are more notable events out there that could be posted in those 11 days you mention (though perhaps not many with a quality article). I'll also note that removing items from ITN/R does not preclude those items from being nominated to ITN/C, just that they aren't guaranteed to be considered notable every time. Mamyles (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@TRM: what is the point of ITNR? To have items that get a get-out-of-ITNC pass or to bypass items that would generate SNOW-debates? Do you think oppose votes should be disregarded just because they were posted at a current ITNC discussion, and not in a lower-traffic ITNR archived discussion? Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing in your comment relates to this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing in your sentence relates to my questions. Nergaal (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Who says ITNR is limited to SNOW cases? If an event routinely passes by a 2:1 margin, that is not a snow case, but it very likely pass every year.  Furthermore, such a debate is especially likely to waste editor time, much more so than an item likely to pass 6-1 vote every time, ince the minority will try hard to win the debate and the majority will have to provide the same detailed responses every year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)