Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 25

Add College Football Playoff National Championship
Major competition in gridiron football. If added, would join America's college basketball championship and at least one university sporting event in another country. p b  p  23:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I'll paraphrase my nomination at ITN/C here. This is one of the major annually recurring sporting events in the U.S. It's been routinely well updated by our editors. Past arguments against posting it have mainly been because it is an amateur competition and that there is no interest outside of North America. The college basketball championship and Boat Race are ITN/R, so obviously we post amateur sporting events. And lack of international impact is irrelevant as ITN items often relate to only one country, or even none at all. As to newsworthiness, there is tons of coverage of this event. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I haven't seen this event hit ITN despite being nominated, garnering too many opposes for being not just an event in one country (that's fine) but a sport that relates entirely to one country. The Boat Race, as comparison, is an historic institution - it gets jokes every year but it's the biggest event in rowing. College basketball is at least a sport other countries play, and since the NBA is widely inaccessible, but college basketball can be viewed on free channels in other countries, it has a better argument. Based on the above comments, every British Universities and Colleges Sport event would be eligible at ITN/R, yet none of them are (the Boat Race is not one of them, btw). Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it was (finally) posted this year, which I expect is what prompted the nom here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Basketball, to be fair, is the most popular sport in China which is the largest country in the world. It's not just a sport that other countries play. It's not even comparable in terms of international appeal to gridiron football. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it's a major event in the United States and is extensively in the news every year. Lepricavark (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Though I do think we'd be better off reducing ITNR sports rather than adding more, this is a glaring omission given the current list. Kingsifs argument above is a great example of the absurdity of opposition to this event every year. We have plenty of ITNR events that are not historic like the Boat Race (World Baseball Classic) or readily available on TV in other countries like college BBall (the Boat Race). People also like to point out that it is amateur or not the top-level, which again does not prevent other events from being ITNR (The Boat Race and the World Baseball Classic, respectively). This is a singular event that really bothers some people for some reason I cannot comprehend. When editors tell me darts and snooker are a really big deal outside the US, I take their word for it. I wish non-American editors would do the same here - this is a really big deal.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that non-American editors don't think it's a big deal in the US, but that this is a case of the US vs the Rest of the World; I don't think darts is an important sport, but the example of snooker is that it has players from all over the world except the US, but American football by nature is non-existent except in small clubs outside of the US. So to editors from elsewhere, it seems ridiculous to include something that in their view is so localized and limited. Not to mention that college sports are rarely seen as anything but a hobby in most countries except for basketball, which is probably why US college basketball is available elsewhere. Kingsif (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Any arguments that this event lacks notability as it relates solely to one country are immaterial, as ITN frequently posts items that relate only to one country on a recurring basis - daily, even. If, in a vacuum, the college football championship existed merely as the final stage of an amateur sport, I'd agree with most of the opposition votes that believe it shouldn't be ITN/R. But college football in the U.S. is much, much more than this, and I think that's what most outsiders fail to understand. Besides the fact the championship pulled in monstrous Nielsen ratings (25.5 million viewers on average) not even factoring in streamers and cord-cutters, college football across the country pulls in a monstrous amount of revenue and advertising dollars year-to-year. Many college football coaches are among the highest paid public employees in their states. This is not some amateur pastime. This is a national phenomenon.--WaltCip (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what made me oppose: in your words, most outsiders don't understand. At least with other national events, it's a sport or a comparative competition that outsiders do understand. It's not that it's just in one country, it's that it doesn't make sense outside of that country. To maybe make this clearer, see above where there are opposes to the Club World Cup - something the US isn't involved in - because 'only Latin America cares about it' even though major clubs contest it; as a comparative, here only the US cares about it, and no major club competes, so why should this be considered more in the news-worthy than that, besides that most of the people voting are American? Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have no freaking idea how rugby works, or even how cricket works. It is completely foreign to me. Yet, when editors tell me it is a huge deal, I believe them, and the press coverage corroborators that assertion. This is no different. We are not asking for lacross. This is football. Believe us College Football is a religion. In most of the U.S., people watch these games more often than they attend church. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My point being that most sports are played around the world (except the US, with almost an entirely different set of sports). With such events, even if it's just in one country, people around the world know what it's about and watch it. US sports don't have that luxury; people around the world have at least heard of the Super Bowl, but not a college competition. The world believes the US that this thing is big to them, but mostly doesn't care. Whereas other countries are interested in foreign events in sports they understand. There's also the fact this is effectively a parallel level of competition to the Superbowl, at amateur, which isn't really understood by other countries, because that just doesn't happen - and as I said above, college sports are insignificant in most places, so the whole format of this event is so foreign it can't be seen as notable to anyone outside the US. It may be the only thing in the news in the US it's so important, but it is not on the news anywhere else at all, and never will be. So it's not actually ITN for most people, which needs to be considered. Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not need to be considered; that argument is a fallacy. "In the news" is not "in the news to an arbitrary cross-section of an international audience across Europe/Australia/wherever". The American award ceremonies like the Grammy, Emmy, and Tony Awards are listed. Aussie football is listed. Canadian football is listed. If anyone were to propose that the latter two should be removed from ITN/R, the hissy fit that would be thrown would be enormous despite them being events of chiefly national importance. You can make the argument that they are listed because they are professional sports, but from the perspective of ITN, the difference between amateur and professional sport is one of perception. And college football is perceived in the US in a manner similar to how many professional sports are perceived in their respective countries. For a measurement of what is "in the news", that is what should matter.--WaltCip (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All those competitions get news coverage in more than one country. The US is big, but it's not the most important. An event from any other country at this level would never be posted if it didn't get some outside news coverage - at ITN it's fine for things to relate to only one country as long as they're sufficiently widely notable, which can be established for an international site like WP by having that foreign coverage. Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Aussie football is listed." Once. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To concur with HiLo here; would all these US editors support putting college-level Aussie rules in ITN/R, or on ITN ever? Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it attained sufficient news coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It gets news coverage all through the season, in Australia. The same way the only news about college football is in the US. Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's the season article about the massive Aussie rules college competition in Australia that gives the audience of the AFL finals series a run for its money? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the point, popularity and notability are different parts of criteria. If it were only on how many people watched, the content of ITN would be much different. And of course, globally, college football meets neither. Kingsif (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Lepricavark, but when you asked (I won't elaborate what was it, it's above), then he said "Yes, if it attained sufficient news coverage." I'd assume "sufficient" meant "AFL finals series-level coverage" sufficient. I wanna know the Aussie rules football college competition that has news coverage as big as the AFL finals series. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – WaltCip said it better than I could. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose putting amateur university sports on ITNR, which has been discussed many times here and at ITN/C (check the archives). This is not the top level of American football, it's a development youth competition for amateur students. The finalists are not even decided by objective on-field performance, but subjective ratings by a selection committee. I know a lot of Americans watch this, and care deeply about the performance of their alma mater's team, but that does not make it a top level sporting event. I also know it passed ITN/C this year, but I would have opposed that nomination if I had been around at the time. I don't think the Boat Race or college basketball should ever be posted either, for the same reasons. We should keep university sport off ITN. Modest Genius talk 20:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But is the main criterion 'top level sporting event'? Wouldn't a better criterion be something like 'event that it is sufficiently in the news'? Lepricavark (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that there can only be a limited number n of ITNR items for each sport, I thought it was fairly obvious that we should select the top n events. A quick glance at the current version of ITNR shows they are, almost without exception, the n top level professional competitions. In the very few cases where an amateur event is listed, it's because there is no professional competition in the sport (e.g. Gaelic football). Modest Genius talk 11:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose This would involve posting two events in the one country for the one sport. It's not a proper competition. And I added the word "Strong" when I saw the attempt to compare this with college basketball. Basketball is a global sport. College basketball attracts dozens of players from all over the world every year. Gridiron not so. So that comparison is just plain wrong and should be simply dismissed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Internationality is not a requirement for ITN/R. WaltCip (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my argument. I was simply pointing out that college basketball and college football are not directly comparable. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your made three arguments in your oppose, all of which apply criteria to this event that is not applied to others. Two events in the one country - Golf has three ITN/R for American events. "But foreigners can participate!" They can and do play football too. Not a lot, but they're there. It's not a proper competition. The Ashes involves the same two teams every time. Parity in college football could be better, but 11 teams have contested the CFP and 4 have won in six years. Gridiron is not a global sport. Neither is rowing. Or Aussie Football. "But they only get one!" So local sports get one, but international sports can get multiples? Where are you finding all these rules?  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I made one argument. It's the sum of what I said that matters, not each fragment individually. Negating each one piece does not negate their sum. This nomination is stretching the envelope. As almost everyone seems to agree, there's a lot of marginal stuff here anyway. We should not be adding more. And where did you get the idea that rowing is not a global sport? It has been in the Olympic Games for most of its modern history. If that doesn't make it global I don't know what does. That's almost an argument of "America isn't interested so it's not global." HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I think my assumed role here as ever is to defend The Boat Race, and as it's often brought up, I'll try to draw some comparisons.  We have no rowing ITNRs. The Boat Race features rowers from around the world and is viewed from around the world.  We actually have to acknowledge, like it or not, that the Boat Race draws international interest.  Literally millions of people around the globe watch the Boat Race.  Literally millions of people in the US watch college football.  Literally no-one outside college football in the US watches college football.  I'm not making any kind of further claim here.  But I have no major issue with this being ITNR, other than it's a niche sport played in one country to any level of excellence, and this isn't even close to the "top level" of that sport.  As a pledge to 2020,  I won't be continuing this divisive discussion, I've made my feelings known so don't expect any further response.  Cheers!  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have a feeling this will go on, so I'm just putting a stakepost down - we should not be posting amateur events of any sport unless they are recognized as the top level event of that sport. And adding a second American Gridiron sport is inappropriate overloading of a sport that is limited to basically one country (and especially when that country is the US which dominates sourcing coverage). A reason also being pushed to add is based on popularity, which is something we don't generally consider if we're talking about notability. The tournament may be watched by millions, but that doesn't mean it has the same impact as the Super Bowl or other events. --M asem (t) 22:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Many editors have raised the 'amateur sporting event' angle with regards to college football, but I'm not sure I've ever seen an explanation for why it matters. How does the amateur/professional distinction impact whether an event is in the news? Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because ITN/R is for events deemed sufficiently notable enough that this criterion can be taken as a pass by default going forward - this should be reserved for the highest/best/most-renowned level in the sport. Add to that, being a college game in particular is undoubtedly one of the reasons why there isn't any news coverage outside of the US. Ignoring that is ignoring the fact Wikipedia is international. Basically: the Super Bowl is ITN/R, there's no justification as to why the JV version should be seen as equal. As an aside, if anyone's interested, I saw an article in WSJ about this year's college football championship that mentioned the Boat Race, I don't think it would be that hard to find it again. Kingsif (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To categorize the CFP as the JV version of the Super Bowl shows you do not understand the subject at hand. It is a different code, with different participants, different fans, et al. And again this is simply not a concept that is applied to others - the winner of three different European soccer leagues are ITNR, even though they're just JV versions (worse really: just qualifiers) of the Champions League (sarcasm, I guess?).  GreatCaesarsGhost   05:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Arguably, nearly every senior athlete at the BCS level is vying to be picked up in the draft for the NFL 3 months later after it completes. It is not the typical major/minor level relationship as in baseball, or the idea of regulation/promotion in other sports, and there's nothing official tying them together, but that relationship is there. (and I would generally agree that the country-level tourneys that are preambles to the global one should be removed for the same reasons. --M asem (t) 06:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand the relationship - I watch and enjoy American football (and still believe in calling it that, the way rugby football, aussie rules football etc. all have the distinction), but both competitions are in the US, and the college one is cared about a lot less. The top competition in the game and the top competition in the country for it are the same thing: the Super Bowl. There is no version in any other country. The minor and lesser competition in the US doesn't warrant being added as well, or every country that plays football would be asking for their second tier or college games to be included. American football is neither widely played nor popular enough to get more than one blurb a year. Kingsif (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. There is in fact no rule that prohibits amateur sporting events from being posted on ITN and we already include both the NCAA basketball championship and The Boat Race.  Calidum   04:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Basketball and rowing are global sports. Gridiron is not. Now, before you say we don't consider international impact, that's only if it was the only criticism. It's that, COMBINED with the other issues regarding this event that matter. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the definition on a "global sport?" American football is played on 6 continents. Many of those have very low participation, but then that's the case with a lot of "global sports." Rowing is not huge in Timbuktu.  GreatCaesarsGhost   05:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Key global sports would be association football (6 continents) and cricket (4), and I'd think rugby would be up there too (this being where there is profession organized play vying for tournaments). The only organized gridiron football league in the US (Canada's version is not considered gridiron football). --M asem (t) 06:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The final 4 teams of the 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup included an English speaking team (that didn't include the US!), a French speaking team, and 2 Spanish-speaking teams in the final. If you'll include teams eliminated in the quarterfinals, there are teams speaking Serbo-Croatian, Polish and Czech. Compare to the final 8 teams 2019 Rugby World Cup with 6 English speaking teams, 1 French speaking team and the host Japanese, and in the final 4 teams (surely a global game can cough up more than 4 knockout stage teams in its "world cup") of the 2019 Cricket World Cup where all 4 spoke English. It's pretty clear that basketball is a global game. To deny otherwise is like LaserLegs opposing Kobe Bryant's death as a blurb for non-quality reasons. (No opinion in the question of this section though.) Howard the Duck (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Basketball is definitely a global sport - in part its an Olympic sport for that reason. I don't think it is as big as assc. football, cricket, or rubgy, but there's good reason to allow more of the championship tourneys to be on ITNR. --M asem (t) 23:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The argument from the start has been that college basketball is included because of its worldwide popularity, something that college doesn't have. Why does it seem like basketball is being brought up to defend its own position on ITN/R when 1. that's not what this discussion is about, and 2. nobody was challenging it, quite the opposite... Kingsif (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Basketball was first raised by those wanting gridiron added here. Those pointing out it's global nature are simply highlighting that gridiron, being exclusive to one country at a serious level, is not comparable with it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I really won't really give emphasis on what sports are played in the Olympics though. The IOC is a European-centric organization, that's why sports such as baseball, cricket and rugby has/had a hard time joining the Olympics. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Cricket and rugby are European (specifically, English) sports, though. Kingsif (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither India nor New Zealand are anywhere near England. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right, that's why cricket is having a hard time getting in the Olympics, and rugby had a hard time (the powerful Oceanian block probably turned the tide). Howard the Duck (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * When I said "European sports", sports Europeans cared about. Probably like what's in Eurosport in Europe? I dunno. Austria national cricket team exists, but only in English and not German, for example. Compare Österreichische Basketballnationalmannschaft. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Beyond US, I bet it's not covered in news regularly. Yes, the US is a sports-oriented nation, but with systemic bias in mind there's no room for more amateur college-level events. Brandmeistertalk  10:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a form of begging the question. There's no limit as to how many events of certain types can be considered ITN/R. Indeed, the inclusion of an event on ITN/R does not inherently exclude the inclusion of some other event that may be overlooked due to systemic bias. The burden of responsibility for combating systemic bias lies in seeking out and adding events that would otherwise be overlooked; not denying events that have no shortage of publicity.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there are hardly any overlooked sports events by now. The Sports section at WP:ITNR is the largest among all others, with 30 subsections, where football alone has five varieties. The second-largest "Awards" section has only 5 subsections. So "seeking out and adding events" to combat systemic bias here is not the right choice. We're already quite sports-oriented where amateur-level competitions should be considered with caution. Brandmeistertalk  08:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a fair argument to be made there about how large the Sports section is at WP:ITNR compared to others, but again, I don't know where we would set a limit at. Sports events by nature do tend to be recurring, moreso than other categories of events. The Awards section has encountered a lot of resistance to enlarging it with other events that would be considered regional or second-tier. Personally I don't mind including those events, as long as they are frequently updated, and feel it should be grown to at least 10 subsections. I guess the summary of my argument is - if there are limits, where do we set them and how?--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All popular US sports are there (baseball, basketball, American football, ice hockey, rugby, golf) with basically all corresponding major competitions, including one on amateur level. Within nearly two years since the most recent addition to Sports (La Liga and Bundesliga in 2018) nothing has been found and nominated, except this proposed item which is quite young (being around only since 	2014, as our article admits). And by my count this item is the second amateur-level competition within one country and the second overall within one national sport. So I think the limit is there for that matter in terms of editorial judgement. Brandmeistertalk  20:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying the CFP started in 2014 is akin to saying the EPL began in 1992 - technically correct but very misleading. It is a direct successor to prior schemes dating to at least 1998 and perhaps even 1992 (depending on one's perspective).   GreatCaesarsGhost   19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose- The CFP is so much less important than the Super Bowl that this would set a precedent for a second-tier event in a sport played only in one country to be guaranteed notability at ITN, which I don't think we have, should, or would do for any analogous event.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Great comets
I've no objection to great comets being posted, but we cannot have an ITNR for "any great comet" when there is no standard whatsoever for what that means. The offered unofficial definition is one "bright enough to be noticed by casual observers who are not looking for them." This speaks not to if the observer is using their naked eye or a telescope, nor if the observer is in Manhattan or a Dark-sky preserve. Could we maybe add a minimum Apparent magnitude?  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparent magnitudes are difficult to define and measure for highly extended objects e.g. comets with long tails (where do you draw the boundary?). I would be happy with adding 'naked eye' to the footnote. Modest Genius talk 12:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realised that 'naked eye' is already in the footnote - the quote above comes from the linked article, not ITNR. Modest Genius talk 16:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We post solar eclipses which are more frequent and last longer than the comets that can be seen by naked eye ;) Decently visible is a good criterion enough. --Tone 16:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Revising the space exploration section
In the recent ITN/C discussion of Emirates Mars Mission, several editors opined that the ITNR listings for space exploration are vague, inconsistent and outdated. With the ever-increasing number of commercial launch providers and national space programmes, I think the whole section needs to be revisited. The archives of this page are a bit of a mess, but as far as I can find the most recent major revision was in 2011, as a result of this discussion. Since then there have only been unsupported proposals and one minor tweak to wording (changing 'manned' to 'crewed').

2019 in spaceflight lists 102 launches last year, many of them carrying multiple payloads. For ITN, we should be picking out at most half a dozen of the most significant stories per year. That doesn't have to be through ITNR, but getting some sensible guidelines here will improve consistency and avoid repeated debates at ITN/C. I think we can all agree that a routine weather satellite or technology demonstration doesn't belong on ITN, but we should be covering a new Mars rover or major space telescope. It would be best not to post the same mission more than once, except in the very rare cases where a single spacecraft visits two celestial bodies (such as Dawn and New Horizons). Something that wasn't envisioned in 2011 is the current array of sample return missions, which also effectively have two destinations (there and back again). There are also some spacecraft which don't have a target object per se, but a region of space e.g. Parker Solar Probe at its close perihelion, or JWST going to the L2 point; it's not clear to me whether the most significant event is then the launch or the arrival at the final orbit.
 * General principles

The problem is specifying the edge cases. Listing space telescopes wouldn't be a sufficient threshold, as we shouldn't be posting things like PicSat. Do we really want to post every mission to the Moon, when Commercial Lunar Payload Services is coming soon? Routine ISS crew rotation flights rarely have anything to say in the article, and often aren't nominated, but previous attempts to remove them from ITNR have been resisted. I think it was fine to post Crew Dragon Demo-2 as a brand new system, but do we want to post every subsequent use of Crew Dragon? Artemis 2 will certainly be suitable but Soyuz MS-15 is a stub and attracted no attention whatsoever. Similarly for the Chinese taikonaut programme, which is compounded by its general secrecy and lack of public information.

In general, I think we should de-emphasise launch technology (such as new or retiring rockets), so suggest removing that item. That also saves having to determine what constitutes a 'new' launch system, when they often get minor updates or have multiple configurations (e.g. Atlas V 511 vs 401, Soyuz 2.1v vs 2.1a). Failed launches shouldn't be posted if a successful launch of the same payload would not have been, but I suggest we delete that too, as it really depends how serious a failure it was (does it just delay the launch, or minor enough that it just left the payload in slightly the wrong orbit?). Those can be left to ITN/C. Space stations are worth leaving in for the Chinese large modular space station and Lunar Gateway if/when those finally happen.

I've struggled to come up with sensible criteria here. I consider these starting points for discussion, not final drafts: Modest Genius talk 15:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposals for discussion
 * The arrival of interplanetary spacecraft at their destination celestial object(s) or final orbit
 * For sample-return missions, this includes both arrival at the target and the arrival on Earth of the returned samples
 * The launch of major space telescopes to low Earth orbit or beyond (sounding rockets and small technology demonstrations are not included)
 * The first launch of a new crewed spaceflight spacecraft to low Earth orbit or beyond
 * The launch (or first crewing?) of new space stations
 * Remove the whole section. We don't need ITNR for everything - we should use it only when it helps. Applying ITNR to space exploration is difficult due to the nuance of each event - which is why you struggled with the criteria. ITNC handles most noms without the help of ITNR, and does quite well in the space category. 1. The obvious items will always be posted. 2. The routine will be always be rejected 3. The border cases will be debated with or without ITNR. Take the indigenous bit - that's a valid reason to post, but there's always going to be a question of what portion was provided by established countries. ITNR helps for the Grammys and the Ashes, which would get significance downvotes without it. But it just doesn't help here.   GreatCaesarsGhost   17:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet another lengthy "Is it ITNR?" discussion today regarding the SpaceX return flight. Again, ITNR is supposed to prevent these side arguments, not create them.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if really the only thing that should be ITNR is the arrival of spacecraft/probes. The other stuff seems so irregular that it should be discussed even if it is likely to be posted. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What 331dot said. The intention behind the ITN/R here was that "landing on another planet" and "radical new design proven to work" were both such obvious shoo-ins that it's not even worth having the discussion; it was never intended to be a free pass to the top of the main page for every NASA press release. If—discounting arguments about article quality—there's a reasonable debate to be had about whether any given topic should run on notability grounds, it shouldn't be ITN/R (and before anyone reaches for the strawmen, yes I'd also support removing the Boat Race from ITN/R). &#8209; Iridescent 19:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It should be remembered that just because we don't list an event on ITNR (despite other events in the same category being there) does not mean it does not qualify; it just has to go through the normal ITNC and be discussed on its own merits. What we want at ITNR are those that the merits of the event shouldn't be an issue at all (most of the time; this year with COVID, things like the cancelled sports and their occurrences have created IAR-able ignorable cases) so trimming to only what is considered clearly acceptable should be fine, with the note that other space events must go through a full ITNC process. --M asem (t) 05:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus reached? I read three and a half supports for removing all but arrival of probes, no opposed. The proposal has been up for a month.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose science and space exploration aren't exactly over represented, there is nothing on the current ITN/R list for space that is in any way controversial. The Emirates launch wasn't covered by ITN/R, was discussed on it's own merits, failed to gain consensus and wasn't posted. What problem are we trying to fix here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

ICC World Test Championship
I propose adding the ICC World Test Championship, which is the newly created world championship for Test cricket, the most prestigious format in the sport. The trophy is scheduled to be awarded every other year, starting in 2021. I know many of you prefer seeing sporting events pass ITN/C before adding them to ITN/R, but this seems like it is clearly worthy of being added to the list now, instead of having to explain to non-fans (such as myself) next year why this trophy is important even though it's new and not on ITN/R.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 07:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Although the proposed format has changed several times, the one we've ended up with is essentially just a coordinated schedule for the usual bilateral Test series, and an overlay points system that supersedes the old ICC Test rankings system. We didn't list the rankings on ITNR and no-one seemed to care about them unless their team moved into first place. It's impossible to tell if the new process is going to have much traction - it could go the way of the 2005 ICC Super Series, or the completely different 'super series' points system that was abandoned after a single trial. I do think this new competition gives us a fairer way of featuring Test cricket on ITN (rather than picking out one or two series), but let's see whether the media even covers the outcome in 2021. If it's a big deal we can add it then. Also, ICC World Test Championship needs a lot of work - it doesn't even describe the current format properly. Getting that up to standard would make it more likely for the competition to pass ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 11:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that England and Australia are involved. Would this replace The Ashes?  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally subscribe to the one event per sport guideline. Cricket and association football get more as they are more popular, fine. Rugby Union gets a lot because of the regional organization of the highest-level competition, fine. But we should still stick with the general idea that only one supreme competition exists. If the most prestigious event in Test Cricket is this new one that includes England and Australia, how can The Ashes still be top level?   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Test cricket is the top level of world cricket. And The Ashes is Test cricket, as is this ICC world championship.  The only difference is that the Ashes is only played between two nations while the championship is open to all Test nations.  I'm not convinced this championship is actually worth adding to ITNR in any case.  And the  "one supreme competition" doesn't work at all, look at our ITNR entries for rugby union.  By your paradigm, we should only have the World Cup on there.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not suggestion this is more important than the Ashes. I'm saying that for any one team playing one code of one sport, there can be only one supreme competition. I do think there are sports that are over-represented - golf and horse racing, by virtue of having no supreme competition, get more entries.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I offer once more rugby union. ITNR has several entries for this sport yet undoubtedly the "supreme competition" is the World Cup.  Are you proposing to remove the Rugby Championship and the Six Nations?  And I obviously missed the part of the ITN/R guidance that suggested the "supreme competition" in any given sport should be the ITNR.

That's amazing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since The Ashes is now part of this championship, I don't understand the argument for elevating the Ashes to an equal or superior status other than personal preference.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just kind of been watching this discussion because I don't have much knowledge on cricket, but I do know that the Ashes will never be integrated into anything else. One is the longest sporting rivalry ever, the most watched international event in cricket for over a century (Indian league cricket likely gets more viewers). The other is just the new not-world cup. The Ashes stands on popularity and historic value, with the Test world championship on... being the biggest? I just read the article and it looks to be a trophy given to whatever national team wins the most Test events in two years. Another question is if the cricket world cup (a different thing) is in ITN/R? That's surely more important than the new championship, since it's an actual tournament and not a running tally prize after an arbitrary amount of time... Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Both the men's and women's World Cups are ITN/R. P-K3 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ashes, while equivalent to Australia vs England and England v Australia for the purposes of this new "championship", is far more historically significant and notable than this new-fangled "test champion" idea will ever be. This isn't about "integrating" The Ashes into the "championship". Indeed, the "championship" is simply a statistical attempt to analyse results of the Test nations and work out who's top every other year.  Little wonder no-one really cares about it.  England want to beat Australia.  India want to beat Pakistan.  South Africa want to beat New Zealand.  No-one really gives a toss who's top of a league table of disparate Test matches at the end of every second year.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand the strong feelings of and  in favor of protecting the ITN/R status of The Ashes and their skepticism about this latest Test championship format. However, it reeks of systemic bias to only list a series that includes two countries, neither of which are currently the best Test cricket team in the world, at the expense of a championship that gives equal opportunity to all Test cricket playing nations and, in contradiction to how it was described above, is not merely a trophy awarded to the team at the "top of a league table of disparate Test matches at the end of every second year." That being said, I had no intention of trying to remove The Ashes with this nomination, and have no reason to disbelieve its profound significance in the sport. I just think we'd do better by posting the result of a competition that allows all the best teams to compete, even if it doesn't have any history yet.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're sort of right about how the World Championship pans out, but not quite. This is a good article on why no-one really gives a toss about it nor should they really "trust" the result. Here's another good one which analyses how truly pitiful the concept is.  Incidentally, it is a trophy handed out at the end of every two years, but after a "play-off final" between the top two teams who are at the top of a league table.  In any case, we should never make this ITNR, not until we've gone through at least one ITNC where a much wider community than this microcosm are enabled to opine.   This place currently averages 18 pageviews per day so it's hardly representative of Wikipedia in general. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You nitpicked something I intended as an aside and was considering not to include at all instead of responding to the main point.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

* Comment. I need to read up on this topic, clearly. But, how popular is this event? Has it gained uptick to being a significant calendar feature? I know the Ashes tend to have some old school value. And, I do see some passionate views on the Ashes. But, let's independently think of this test championship, and if it does merit consideration. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I read up on this topic, and I am not convinced that this is a significant event to justify an ITNR. I know they have been trying to resurrect this notion of a test champion for sometime now, but, this is largely experimental in my opinion. For now, I would say, lets this just be as-is and post on ITNC for the next event. If the popularity has indeed taken off - we can revisit it then. Also, an unpopular opinion perhaps, but, I would say we should just get rid of the Ashes as well from ITNR. Largely old school value, and has been replaced with newer formats, newer rivalries, and more notable events. Ktin (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Newer rivalries"? Nice oxymoron!  The Ashes is the pre-eminent Test series and has been for more than a century.  New-fangled formats (such as T20, or "the Hundred") are different games altogether.  Feel free to nominate the removal of The Ashes however.  That would be a fascinating debate.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with your positions, I do not wish to change them. Cheers and have a good day! Ktin (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you won't change them. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 07:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I agree :)
 * Jokes apart, have a nice day! Ktin (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until at least one championship goes through ITN/C --LaserLegs (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until at least one championship goes through ITN/C --LaserLegs (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove La Liga and Bundesliga
Second year in a row Bundesliga wasn't even nominated. This year La Liga was nominated but not suitable for posting. For all the insistence on "importance" during the discussion neither of these tournaments has been posted since being added to ITN/R. It's ok to be wrong, lets just get them off the list. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's been a funny old year for football leagues. There's no rush here, let's see what happens next year.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose- If none of the two dozen or so ITN regulars fail to get around to nominating and updating an event, that doesn’t magically make it less important. In fact, Spain has a higher UEFA club coefficient than England, so I would sooner support removing Premier League than La Liga, which obviously should and would never happen.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ITNR is being in the news every year, which doesn't really correspond to UEFA coefficients. I suppose if the Premier League is in Northern Irish levels of competitiveness, it'll still be in the news. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, whatever that means. The point here is that this year's competitions have been disrupted to the point of rendering most of them almost inconsequential, certainly "in the big scheme of things" (TM) so we didn't get round to nominating one of these and not updating  the other, get over it, there's no deadline.  Thanks for the lulz.   The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the year to be discussing long-term standards for sports. Kingsif (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too soon, let's wait until next year when there might be something approaching normality and see if they get nominated. P-K3 (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with most of the comments above. Let's not remove this year. I do think these are fairly prominent / notable events in their own right. Ktin (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)