Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 7

Proposal to remove Poker from ITN/R
I remember having a discussion/argument/moment last year about the ITN/R status of Poker. I believed then, and I still do today, that this overblown hobby shouldn't have a place on the automatic okay list which is ITN/R. There is a clear and inherent bias towards an event which is neither sport nor game. It's crazy to put this at the same level as most actual sports - not least when we seem as a community to allow netball, Gaelic football and, yes, Hurling, through on a 'free pass'. I contend that the article views for Poker are inflated by people looking for hints/tips/game ideas rather than specifically the tournament listed, and therefore there would be no loss in removing it from the ITN/R list. If it's vital to have on the front page, argue the case properly doktorb wordsdeeds 04:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I believe the World Series of Poker receives enough international attention to make a strong case for being on ITNR, although I agree it shouldn't really be classed as a 'sport'. No objection to it staying or going. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Poker is not a sport, in that it doesn't normally feature in the sports pages of major newspapers. This matters regardless of what else might be said in favour of the event, because ITNR doesn't have a section for card games. Formerip (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR should only be for events which would easily pass. While I'd probably support posting poker if it were nominated at ITNC, I don't think it's popularity is enough to make it an automatic.   Hot Stop   14:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The WSOP garners far more global interest than a lot of things I believe we wouldn't dream of removing. If it is the community's demonstrable wish to take an axe to the majority of ITNR, then I'm relaxed about this particular event going. But looking at the sorts of things we cover on ITNR, poker generally and the WSOP main event specifically is quite high up in terms of global appeal. —WFC— 15:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WFC. Khazar2 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends it was posted on the main page a couple of times, and wasn't posted other times. The thing with poker is that while it's a global game, I don't see the lasting notability of the event (and I'm a huge poker fan). There's a some luck involved as well in this game. If there's a big reason why we should list the main event, like a woman or a repeat champion winning the event, then I see it being warrantied as it will make a huge impact in the game/sport, but otherwise impact is slim at best. Thanks Secret account 17:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which basically means it should go through the normal procedure at ITNC. I think we need to make it abundantly clear at both ITNC and ITNR that not being on ITNR isn't a valid reason to oppose.   Hot Stop   17:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If there is a removal here, I'm worried about an instant oppose if the event gets nominated just because it's not in ITNR, as there is circumstances that could warranty a posting (like I said a female player winning the event), but I don't see no reason to be listed here neither as there is rarely any lasting notability. Secret account 02:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, I see no relevance in the fact that poker doesn't fall into the same general category as most of the sports listed or receive coverage in sports sections of major newspapers. The same could be said of chess, for which we list two events. ITN/R lacks dedicated sections for card games and board games, but how is that a factor in this decision? What matters is that this is a recurring event of widespread interest (greater than that of some others on our list, as has been pointed out above). Also, it's been asserted elsewhere on the page that this is poker's premier championship. If that's the case, its inclusion on the list should be automatic under our longstanding principle. If that isn't the case, I nonetheless believe that it qualifies on the merits. —David Levy 05:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as per Hot Spot, and as per Secret's comment that while Poker itself may remain popular, this particular event may at some point be superseded by another one. Khuft (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- The WSOP gets significant coverage regardless of whether something special happens or not, so there should be no need for us to judge it on a case-by-case basis. It gets global interest and does not have widespread popularity in just one country. It has no singular "home country", and thus is truly a notable worldwide event.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- Although I realize that Doktorbuk's closing arguments were both fair and logical, I don't feel that a clear consensus for this has been reached. Additionally, it is generally accepted etiquette that the nominator of a proposal should not close a discussion in accordance with his opinion. Thus, I request that this discussion be reopened.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I did accept such a decision might have to be made with user David Levy. However, with that said, I am also going to have to accept that it is frustrating that, after more than a week, a discussion can't be closed with a fair and balanced decision regardless of who the editor might be! Here's where I stand - I accept that it's not "the done thing" to close discussions as I did. We need to make decisions, as this page is full of discussions which are kept open in the name of "consensus building". If we're not careful, there will be editor drift while talks go on without end. On the Poker nomination specifically, I remain personally in favour of removal from ITN/R, and would hope that even if we continue this discussion for one more week, that conclusion will be made by whoever closes. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't find the arguments for removal persuasive. The belief that poker is an "overblown hobby" is immaterial, as are all such personal opinions of our articles' subjects.  (For the record, I'm not a poker fan either.)

Proposal to remove Euroleague Basketball from ITN/R
I am going to post this at the Wikiproject:Basketball page in an attempt to gauge some form of 'expert' opinion

The nomination of Euroleague Basketball at ITN/C has once again torn open the rice-paper thin consensus on ITN/R. The attitude seems to be "easy to add items to ITN/R, impossible to remove". From what I have gathered, Euroleague Basketball is not regarded as notable in its sport, and as a world-wide events ranks particularly lowly. ITN/R inclusion is considered dubious. If and until someone can make a convincing case for its retention I propose its removal.

I will direct Wikiproject:Basketball users here if any notice my post

doktorb wordsdeeds 08:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Basketball is just not a big deal in Europe generally. Even if it might have a huge following in Albania or somewhere (for all I know), certainly in the UK just about no-one could give you the name of a domestic baketball player or even a team. Euroleague wasn't even broadcast in the UK until last season, when it was picked up by ESPN UK, which is basically the home for sports no-one wants to watch (although I don't think they use that as their actual tagline). By a similar token, Eurobasket should also be removed. There is a difference between the two tournaments, apparently. Formerip (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eurobasket is the basketball equivalent of the football Euros, I believe; I would think that, as a national-level continental championship, would face more opposition in a removal proposal. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this event isn't important enough, per above.  Hot Stop  14:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If ITNC is disrupted again because people aren't happy about ITNR, the matter will be taken further. It's entirely unacceptable to deliberately undermine our normal workings without having made a prior attempt to resolve the issue, and this should not and will not be allowed to happen on a regular basis. Perhaps the bigger issue is that we do not have a good way of publicising suggested additions or removals to ITNR, and perhaps the time spent on proverbial chest thumping at ITNC would be better spent trying to deal with that problem. Necessary rant over, I'm leanding towards removing this one. This seems to be the basketball equivalent of the CONCACAF Champions League. —WFC— 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per FormerIP and doktorB. Khazar2 (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Basketball is actually well followed in Europe, it's not just well-followed in the "right" countries. Case in point:
 * The 2011–12 Euroleague article approaches 2,000 page views per matchday: . Compare that to the 2011–12 Heineken Cup which can't even surpass 1,000 views on match days:.
 * The Euroleague was actually more covered than the Heineken Cup: 99k news Google News results for Euroleague vs. 25k Google News hits for the H-Cup. These are the number of Google News news articles, not Google search results.
 * According to the FIBA World Rankings, 6 out of 10 strongest basketball countries are from Europe.
 * As for the EuroBasket, it quite follows that it is actually larger than the Euroleague, which is a club competition. Compare EuroBasket 2011 vs. Six Nations Championship. It's an effing no contest. If basketball isn't well-followed in Europe, I dunno how'd you classify rugby in the European team sports pecking order. It certainly can't be higher than basketball, but it's on ITN/R.
 * What's funny is the absence of the most significant basketball tournament in the ITNR list. – H T  D  16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have made this point several times. If you really think that one event among so many in the midst of the Olympics will be passed at ITN/C with such unanimity that it deserves a place on ITN/R, then I can only suggest that you test out that theory at ITN/C in a couple of months time.  If the support then is overwhelming, then you will have excellent evidence for proposing its addition to the ITN/R list.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you know what happened in 2008. It was heavily opposed due to the Olympic wave of stories (and the Americans won lol). In 2010 it wasn't as much, that's why the ice hockey gold medal game (Canada vs USA) made it. – H T  D  22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's funny is that Euroleague got about 18,000 views in the link HTD posted. Compare that to the NCAA tournament which got 29,000 views that same month, and almost 43,000 in March (when the tournament happened).  But of course, the NCAA one is of limited interest while Euroleague is currently unassailable.  And FYI, the fact that X top nations are in Europe doesn't hold water in this case.  It's an argument for keeping EuroBasket (an international tournament) not Euroleague (club competition).  Hot Stop   17:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I also support the NCAA March Madness every year. People would argue it's not the highest level of the sport but just a generation ago, American college kids were still beating the best European players in the Olympics, until they caught up and became competitive. – H T  D  22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I reverted the removal of the Euroleague in the ITNR list. The discussion is eight days hours old, for Chris' sakes. – H T  D  16:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just removed it from ITNR per WP:BOLD. A listing at ITNR is an assertion that there is consensus for it to be posted every time it occurs: it is clear from the above discussion and the previous one at ITN/C that no such consensus exist. Since HTD has now re-added it that is moot, but I ask him one question: show me the current consensus for its listing. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC).
 * This is the type of procedural hurdle that I was talking about earlier. So if a bold editor comes and removes an ITNR item, sensing that the consensus has tipped in its favour, another editor can cite an earlier consensus to filibuster its removal, as long as the result of this discussion is a "no-consensus". Just throwing an arbitrary standard out there - if 70% of users want to remove, 30% want to keep, the closing editor is more-likely-than-not going to label this discussion "no consensus", retaining the status quo.I think the vast majority of editors on this page are acting in good faith, so the problem is not editor behavior, but a procedural matter. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you know that it's not a vote, and I just refuted every argument on this section. – H T  D  22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't refuted anything. I asked you to show me the current consensus and you have completely ignored that.  ITNR is a list of items with consensus for posting every time.  No consensus doesn't mean the status quo holds, it means it goes because it can no longer be claimed to have the consensus required for it to stay.  When you added it back yesterday you were asserting a current consensus for its inclusion: I don't see it here nor at ITN/C. Where is it? Crispmuncher (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Refuting the removal arguments was easy. The arguments are it is not important or of interest to Europeans. I pretty much refuted those. The question is if is important or of interest enough to be on ITNR. You invoked consensus eight hours after the discussion started. EIGHT HOURS. EIGHT HOURS. Who else does that? You could've at least waited for like 80 hours. – H T  D  17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the current consensus for removal? – H T  D  17:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I wrote: ITNR is a list of items with consensus to post every time. I didn't assert a consensus, I asserted a lack of one - there needs to be consensus for it to retain its listing.  No, you have not refuted anything.  All you have done is post some stats from Google.  That's an observation but the idea that it somehow nukes every argument raised in opposition is wide of the mark, particularly when it is the kind of argument that would not be accepted at all anywhere else per WP:RS.  Repeating the same assertions and claiming that they sweep all other arguments aside does not make the argument any stronger.
 * It wasn't eight hours either, the previous discussion on ITN/C had already been active for 48 hours and revealed a lack of consensus and if you read my comments above I explicitly referenced that discussion. Even with its current ITNR listing it failed to get posted, not because of updates but because of the level of opposition to it.  Its now gone from ITN/C without getting posted and as such it has already lost its ITNR status in a de facto way even if it is still listed on there.  As far as I'm aware that is the first time an item has been rejected on notability while being listed on ITNR, which is itself evidence of the opposition to it: if it couldn't get posted with ITNR status what chance would it have without it?  ITNR is for stuff that will get posted every time even without that status: it is clear this does not fit the bill by the simple measure that it didn't get posted. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are not just some Google search shit I posted, they're legit Google News results: every link there would pass WP:RS.
 * I dunno if the article was updated if it would be posted. We're not so sure on that. The updates were too short and should've gone to 2011–12 Euroleague Final Four anyway -- the "update" was just a sneaky shortcut to make it get posted and I would've opposed its inclusion in the live template at that state. Hence it getting "de facto" lost its ITNR status just doesn't make sense. GAA events had been opposed heavily for years until I and the people gave up it and it always goes up. I dunno about the quality of the updates there, though. – H T  D  02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting a bulk count wouldn't pass WP:RS: a lot of those hits are incidental references or refer to previous years. A selected a few stories at random from Google's results:    .  None of those stories cover the Euroleague either primarily or even as a secondary topic. How do they support the assertion of notability? These are not results rank in the 90 thousands - they were all selected in a matter of seconds from the top 100 stories, more-or-less at random.  How many of those 90-odd thousand matches are actually anything to do with this league? That's what Google doesn't tell you. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno, maybe the news cycle replaced this. I still get quality hits on the first page, such as this, this where the Panathinaikos bus was thrown with rocks (so much for low interest in this league), and this where it states London will the next 2 Euroleague final fours -- Londoners should be ready with crazy Greek fans! – H T  D  04:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support removal. We should really be examining leagues and championships in their own right, and this championship is orders of magnitudes behind something like the NBA championships in terms of notability. Regardless, I am sympathetic to the H-cup argument above; but that means we need to also get rid of the H-Cup from ITNR, and does not justify the inclusion of Euroleague just because. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The H-Cup won't ever be removed here. I'm betting the house and the lives of all my grandchildren. That's why I'm using it as the standard of inclusion here. – H T  D  22:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Only the top leagues should be included for sports, and for Basketball that's clearly the NBA (where incidentally also the top European players tend to gravitate to). Khuft (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I totally agree with HTD. If the sport is not popular in the UK and you don't know the countries where it is popular, you simply don't have a legitimacy of arguments to draw any conclusion. Basketball is one of the main sports in Europe and the fact it is not popular in UK is completely irrelevant, when it is regularly followed by dozens of millions in Russia, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Turkey, etc. Even if you consider that the English Wikipedia has most of its readers in the UK and should therefore be leaning towards stories popular within its borders, the number of people reading it only in the mentioned countries is larger. Moreover, basketball is worldwide one of the most popular sports and naturally should be represented with more stories per year, and the Euroleague as top continental competition is surely the closest one behind NBA. Important note for those who don't know about the Euroleague is that its equivalent in football would be the UEFA Champions League.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's telling is that despite not being popular in an English-speaking European country, it still out-views (if there's such a word) a sporting event that is supposedly massively popular in the UK+Ireland in the English Wikipedia. I really hope no one gives me the argument that Americans (and Canadians) were checking out Sonny Weems' career in Europe. – H T  D  22:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you also comment on Hurling above? Colipon+ (Talk) 18:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Basketball is one of the most popular sports in certain parts of Europe, and this is the most notable event of a notable sport within a wide range of countries.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Basketball is one of the most popular sports in certain parts of Europe . Formerip (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's widely described as the most popular sport in Lithuania, and it's pretty high up the list in much of former Yugoslavia (not the best source, but the most conveniently available). Zagal e jo^^^ 23:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The former Yugoslavia eh? I'm impressed. This would make the event highly suitable for ITNR on Serbo-croat WP. Surely, we either list all sporting events that are important somewhere in the world as ITNR or we don't. I've a feeling that "we don't" is better. Formerip (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My citations showed that it broke records in Spain and Greece and also received significant coverage in Turkey, Russia, and Germany.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, as well as Serbo-croat it may be a good candidate for ITNR on the Spanish, Greek, Turkish, Russian and German Wikipedias. Why don't we include the SEATTA table tennis championships? (Come to think of it, why don't we even have an article on them?) Or the Kuwait Camel Races Championship? Formerip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite being played in non-English speaking countries, this has higher page view stats than a sporting event that is supposedly massive in Europe's English speaking countries. That's the difference. – H T  D  01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What I would take from those page view stats is that there are many English language sources of information on, say, the Heineken Cup but relatively few English language sources of information on European basketball. Hence the rugby audience is spread over many more places (e.g. every national paper will have the H-Cup result and most will have reports) but the English language audience for European basketball is more concentrated here. FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly possible, but if there are many sources of English language information on a sporting event, should it follow that it should have higher page view stats since it implies higher interest amongst English speakers in the English Wikipedia? There was even a claim that the Eurobasket.com website (of no relation to the EuroBasket championships) has a bigger audience than NBA.com; that means there's interest to this even among English speakers. – H T  D  14:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what point you are making. To be clear, I was saying that if there are many English language sources on an event (e.g. H-Cup) then many people will have found all of the information that they want outside of Wikipedia but if there are few English language sources on an event (e.g. European basketball) then many people will come to Wikipedia to find out about it (assuming that we cover it).
 * I think that the idea of Eurobasket.com website having a bigger audience than NBA.com supports this contention. If your local TV news / paper / whatever has covered the NBA results then you don't need to look at NBA.com, if it hasn't covered Eurobasket then you do look at Eurobasket.com. FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles will still have traffic whether or not users already knew what happened. Take for example the F1 season article, it consistently has the largest page views on race day vs. other sporting events, but people have the whole internet to look for results.
 * I don't live in Europe so I dunno what's the situation there. I guess it can be measure by the number of games that aired on pan-European sports channels? Eurosport had coverage (not only this but other basketball tournaments, especially on the European & World under-X groups championships), but then again I see a fair amount of handball and rugby there. – H T  D  14:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You were (or at least seemed to be) making the point that the popularity of a sport could be determined simply by the number of page views on Wikipedia and I pointed out that those numbers could be interpreted differently, even to show the opposite point. Now I am not sure what point you are making.
 * Without knowing a lot of other information the relative popularity of sports, in terms of page views, does not tell us a great deal. F1 races take place on a Sunday which is not the most common day for professional sport and so its relative good performance may be affected by that.
 * Measuring the popularity of a sport (or any topic) is far from easy. The number of games that aired on pan-European sports channels is probably one of the worst possible measures.  A sport popular in multiple countries will have many multiple broadcasters wanting it, hence coverage may be split between several of them and they may all be national broadcasters.
 * If you actually want to make a case that is at all convincing you probably need to look at a number of measures. Off of the top of my head I can think of:
 * * coverage (TV, radio, press, internet)
 * * audience (TV, radio, internet)
 * * attendance at elite (e.g. professional) matches
 * * attendance at other (e.g. amateur) matches
 * and there will almost certainly be others.
 * The end result is likely to rank sports very differently on different measures. FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it is not that easy to disprove that Europeans are not into basketball, no? If we can't prove it is the 2nd most popular sport in the continent, certainly we can't prove that it is the 2nd least popular. The point is without anything to base on aside from our respective biases, we'd have to make do with what we have. I really find your theory on page views a stretch; many sporting events are held on a Sunday: the Super Bowl, Copa Sudamericana finals, heck even the final day of the 2012 European Athletics Championships and the 2012 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final are on Sundays. The page views almost always measures interest amongst the English Wikipedia's readers. – H T  D  17:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (P.S.: You may find my Google News hits to be quite relevant in this discussion. – H T  D  17:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC))
 * The onus is on the person making a point to prove it. If you say that basketball is the second most popular sport in Europe then you have to show that is the case, it is not up to anyone else to disprove it.
 * If you want to make that case you don't have to make do with what is easy to get (page view counts) but you need to build a body of evidence. I did not, as you are implying, say that nothing could be gained from looking at various types of data.  What I said was that different measure would likely yield different results.  If you can provide, say, a dozen genuinely different measurements and, say, eight of them ranked basketball as second then you might convince people.
 * As for sport on Sundays; firstly you are, again, arguing against something I did not say. I said that "Sunday ... is not the most common day for professional sport" not that there is no sport on Sundays.  Secondly, the examples you give rather make my case for me.  What you have listed is four events in the year when there are something like 18 F1 races.  If F1 races were on a Saturday you would have been able to list thousands of competing events.
 * "The page views almost always measures interest amongst the English Wikipedia's readers" - Do you have any evidence at all to support that assertion? If their interest has been fully satisfied elsewhere why would someone look at the relevant Wikipedia at the time? FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I can build bodies and bodies of evidence but it wouldn't mean a thing. It ultimately depends on what I give and what you choose to receive and what you give back in return. We wouldn't reach conclusions in this discussion. All we can get at is some rough guide on where things stand and a lot of wasted time arguing that could've been better used at improving articles.
 * Actually, I was amused at your Sunday comment: I didn't say no one plays high-level sport on a Sunday, I just provided examples that there are some high-level sports played on that day. It was actually hard to find examples, which probably means you were somewhere between "dogmatic right" and "somewhat right since I can't prove anything anyway no matter how many stuff I dig up." – H T  D  22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that if it isn't related to an English-speaking country, it shouldn't be posted. I have shown that it is notable for a number of large non-English countries, not just one small one like the Kuwait Camel Races. We often post sporting events that have no significance or major coverage whatsoever in any English-speaking countries, and this even has quite a lot of coverage in America, as shown by my second source.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a page that listed the Top 20(?) countries that frequently use the English Wikipedia. There's a good start to find out which countries do matter. – H T  D  01:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal. There's a perfectly reasonable case that it's the second most popular team sport in Europe, with a large following in most European countries (but not the UK).  The 'supports' above are clearly very parochial and are not taking into account the sports' or the league's popularity on the continent.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to support the suggestion that basketball is the second most popular team sport in Europe? Without evidence I find it hard to believe that this proposition is feasible let alone reasonable. FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where else in Europe is rugby popular? Among the "six nations" it's only very popular in the UK+Ireland, popular in France but not as much in the British Isles, marginally popular in Italy and... dunno for the rest of Europe. Basketball has a pretty solid following in southern Europe (Spain, Italy, former Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey), Lithuania, Russia and somewhat less so in Eastern Europe. It's quite possible that basketball can give rugby a run for its money. Heck, maybe handball has more fans than rugby since rugby fans are concentrated on 3 countries. It's perfectly plausible that European nations outside the 6 Nations, basketball is more popular than rugby.  H T  D  14:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about rugby?
 * Johnsemlak used weasel words to say that basketball is the second most popular sport in Europe and I was asking him to substantiate that claim.
 * If I was asked to name the second most popular sport in Europe I would say that it depends upon how you measure it but the possibilities that most readily occur to me include:
 * * Cycling (France, Spain, Italy, Benelux, Germany, and some others)
 * * Handball (most of continental Europe I believe)
 * * Formula 1 (huge in Italy, popular in the rest of western Europe)
 * * Athletics (again most of continental Europe)
 * I have talked to friends and colleagues in many European countries (having visited quite a few of them) and these have come up in conversations about sport much more than basketball.
 * Finally, FWIW cycling is nowhere nearly as popular in the UK as it is in continental Europe but it is streets ahead of basketball in the UK.
 * FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was thinking more on the lines of sports leagues. So I crossed out cycling, formula 1 and athletics. I dunno if they sell tickets on cycling; people just wait at the route, right? Formula 1 is ran on massive racetracks that are larger than most stadia, while athletics is an outdoor sport and is mostly done per tournament and not on a "season", so if people missed a tournament, they'd have to wait for the several tourneys before it goes back to their city (if it does ever come back), unlike with sports leagues where you can miss a game and still won't miss everything. In terms of sports leagues, the European pecking order would be football, then a close fight between rugby union, basketball and handball, then probably volleyball and ice hockey. – H T  D  17:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you are sounding rather like a troll rather than someone trying to be constructive. You have repeatedly responded to me by disagreeing with something other than what I said.  Here I have made some valid points and you are trying to change the basis of discussion, seemingly, simply to support your position.
 * Noone before has said that this discussion is limited to sports that have a league structure. Also F1, cycling & athletics do have a league structure.  In F1 the winning driver is the one who has accrued the most points over the season.  In cycling the winning rider has the best time accrued over the duration of the event (consider each second to be a point).  In athletics you will see that at both the national and international level it has a league structure.
 * Also you are introducing irrelevant items:
 * * whether tickets are sold has not been mentioned before
 * * the size of F1 circuits is not significant (except that it may show how popular it is)
 * * the fact that athletics takes place outdoors does not matter, so does football
 * Finally, your statement that you "crossed out cycling, formula 1 and athletics" implies that you believe them to be more popular in Europe than basketball is but you chose to ignore them when saying that basketball is the second most popular sport in Europe. FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, I crossed out the three because I haven't then considered on how they are structured; I wasn't trolling. I even LOL at myself for missing out F1. It's just that when I think of sports, I think of leagues and teams; heck even I knew F1 was similar in structure to a normal sports league, and even said it's one of the most popular sport there is. I haven't considered (then) where they are on the pecking order. I was not changing the basis of the discussion, at least not consciously, I honestly missed those. – H T  D  22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to illustrate the fact, these are the menus for the sports pages of some popular European news websites:
 * El Mundo: "Fútbol   Liga BBVA    Champions    Eurocopa 2012    Juegos Olímpicos 2012    Motor    Baloncesto    Tenis    Ciclismo    Más deporte" (second sport mentioned after football and the Olympics).
 * Eurosport Germany: "Fußball F1 Tennis Basketball Motorsport Handball Snooker Radsport EURO 2012 Olympia Mehr"
 * Eurosport Italy: "Calcio F1 Motogp Basket Tennis Rugby Ciclismo Wrestling Golf Londra 2012 Euro 2012 Altro"
 * What does this mean? In Spain, Germany and Italy, this implies that basketball is the second most popular sport that is played on a league system. You're right on auto sports, though. I could go on forever but you'd probably say this doesn't prove anything. – H T  D  17:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would only say that because it doesn't prove anything.
 * What it actually shows is the editorial choices of the website providers. That may be affected by a multitude of factors.  For example if Eurosport shows basketball then they may well list that nearer the start than they otherwise would.
 * The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/) lists:
 * Olympics | Football | Rugby Union | Cricket | Tennis | F1 | Boxing | Rugby League | Cycling | Golf | Racing | UFC | Fantasy
 * whereas the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/) lists:
 * Football | Formula 1 | Cricket | Rugby U | Rugby L | Tennis | Golf | Olympics
 * and all that proves is that they have made different choices.
 * Also you have changed "basketball is the second most popular sport in Europe" to "basketball is the second most popular sport that is played on a league system the way that I define a league system, that is if you ignore motor sports".
 * I have no axe to grind in this matter. I don't care in the slightest what is the second most popular sport in Europe.  However if we are going to make decisions on what is included and what is not based on popularity then the measure of popularity has to have broad-based measurable meaning and not rely on one of two (possibly cherry-picked) pieces of data that are in any case open to a different interpretation.
 * FerdinandFrog (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I specifically excluded UK websites since we all apparently know what's the pecking order there. Eurosport does air basketball (well, the Eurosport feed I get here should not be the one the UK viewers watch), as well as a multitude of sports such as rugby, handball, cycling, tennis, etc. They're even airing Asian 5 Nations rugby, which was nice, at least on my feed of Eurosport. Like I said, I can go on forever and it wouldn't prove anything, but it shows you the rough guide on how things really are. I was actually surprised to see my cherry-picked results. I can't wait to look at some more examples; I went at Le Monde's website and basketball wasn't there, so that's a start. – H T  D  22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't like to pour irony into this, but the discussion highlighting the 'British pride' leads completely to asymmetric view over the popularity of some sports in Europe. Maybe next is to argue that fake sports like darts, bowls, and artistic billiard are more popular in 'Europe' (i.e. "United Kingdom"; didn't know that everything valid for the UK is automatically valid for 'Europe' as a global term) than basketball. However, principles and guidelines on Wikipedia are built by a community of users and I will accept any decision made after a consensus will be reached.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * However I think that you are pouring your own prejudice into this. Whilst I would agree that there are some events (even in the Olympics) that are called sports that do not meet any reasonable definition of sport having a pop at certain events does not help matters.
 * As an aside, why do you think that bowls is not a sport? It is skillful, involves some (albeit limited) physical activity and is objectively scored. FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I classify an activity as a sport if I can incur a massive injury while playing it... – H T  D  17:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of well in that case we can discount basketball as a sport as it is no more dangerous than walking down the street. FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an unfortunate definition - Crown Green Bowls has more mid match fatalities than pretty much anything (due to the age of the competitors). Possibly a useful criteria might be to look at previous occassions when a particular article has been featured. And the count the page hits, but then we need to try and factor in the relevant population bias, and so lets consider the population of the host country and the nationalities of the 2 finalists, perhaps add up those (3 wiki population) numbers and divide the page hits by those numbers. If that comes out to more than lets say 25% then its either very popular in those countries, or it has a big international appeal. Obviously thats just a suggestion for a sliding scale. EdwardLane (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Several editors have challenged claims that Basketball is popular on the continent. While it is reasonable to ask for citations, it's incumbent on those wishing to challenge the de facto consensus that European basketball is not sufficiently notable. In any case, several editors have made claims, many based on first hand observation, that is it significantly popular in several major countries. I can personally attest that it is the third most popular team sport in Russia behind Football and Ice Hockey; and Russian teams have won the competition.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Several editors clearly have a point. It is also said that the discussion intends participation and opinions of people actively contributing to the WikiProject Basketball, and instead we have people who sharply struggle to illustrate the non-importance of the sport, but in fact don't know what the Euroleague is and where the sport is popular.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The Euroleague is a very important and popular sport league in places like Greece, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Lithuania. The Euroleague final is a very significant international sporting event. As you can see here, Euroleague final conclusion in numerous languages - you have this from nation-wide live television broadcasts in countries like Italy, Russia, Spain, Greece, Turkey, and even the nation-wide American broadcast through ESPN's American internet TV service. The Euroleague final four was broadcast to 174 countries through 66 TV networks, including many of the largest sports networks in the world, like Canal+, Viasat, Al Jazeera, CCTV, Setanta, Supersport and Guangdong TV -> So, it is being held in worldwide broadcast live on TV and internet TV in English by ESPN, not to mention broadcast through Europe, China, the Mideast. I really don't see how this cannot be considered "news worthy". Euroleague is a huge deal in many European countries. So, I think that things like who won the Euroleague title, who won Euroleague MVP, who won Euroleague Final Four MVP, are indeed news worthy. Just my opinion, but you can check YouTube if you want. This is just from a few days -> YouTube Euroleague Final uploads - as you can see, there are hundreds of thousands of views in just a little short time, considering how long most of the videos have been online. Not to mention dozens of uploads in several different languages, from several different countries. I don't think this is normal for an event that no one cares about or that is as some have argued for a sport league that is not considered as professional. Just my opinion.Bluesangrel (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to eliminate the "premier championship(s) of every major sport" principle

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result was no consensus to retain the principle. At one time, the community enthusiastically endorsed this idea. Evidently, that time has passed. At this point, there isn't even sufficient interest in discussing it. Therefore, in light of the clear challenges (one of which just resulted in the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship's removal from the list, a decision incompatible with the principle's retention), I have no choice but to conclude that consensus has changed/dematerialized. The agreement is terminated, meaning that any event's inclusion on the list can be contested and debated on an individual basis. —David Levy 06:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it seems that no one else wants to initiate this discussion, I've decided to do so myself. The community agreed (back in 2006, I believe) to automatically include an ITN item for the premier championship(s) of every major sport (provided that the requisite article update occurs), thereby eliminating the need for individual debates (such as the ongoing discussion about hurling). Whether consensus for this agreement remains is unclear, so I seek to gauge that now. If the principle is eliminated, the inclusion of any sporting event at ITN/R will be subject to specific consensus; statements such as "the Super Bowl is the premier championship of American football", "the AFL Grand Final is the premier championship of Australian rules football" and "the Grey Cup is the premier championship of Canadian football" will no longer constitute inherent justification for an event's inclusion. For the record, I oppose this proposal (because I believe that the agreement has prevented a great deal of partisan bickering, thereby enabling us to focus more on improving the actual encyclopedia articles). But if the community disagrees with me, I fully respect its position. Either way, let's find out. —David Levy 19:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't really matter, however, as we aren't bound by that decision anyway. What matters is the current consensus. —David Levy 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC) We're unable to link to the original discussion, which evidently wasn't archived properly. The principle has been applied since 2006.
 * Support the elimination of a "principle" dating back to 2006 which I'd guess most of the current community is not even aware of, as per WP:NOTSTATUTE. "Major sport" is not even really defined in this "principle". The bickering mentioned in the proposal occurs anyway on ITN/C when certain proposals pop up. I prefer a case-by-case discussion on the relevance of the individual sports & leagues here on ITN/R. Khuft (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTSTATUTE is irrelevant, as no one asserts that we're bound by a bureaucratic technicality. If consensus has changed, so be it.  —David Levy 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we have a link to this "principle" and any other principle that 'governs' ITN at the moment? Colipon+ (Talk) 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No one has succeeded in tracking down the original discussion (which apparently wasn't archived properly). The archives that do survive contain only mentions of the discussion and reiteration that the agreement exists.
 * If no one can actually link the original principle, then I don't see any real purpose to this discussion, since the consensus obviously was not important enough to get 'enshrined'. Regardless, even if we accept that such a principle exists, it would still be a far stretch to establish Hurling as a "major sport". As such, I believe this discussion no longer has much relevance. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought that you were requesting a link to the original discussion. Are you referring to documentation within a guideline? If so, that role is filled by ITN/R (originally Sports on ITN), which encompasses the relevant events and many others. But again, none of this matters. If the principle lacks consensus now, it carries no more weight than it would if it never existed. So let's determine the current consensus. If you oppose the principle, please support this proposal. I encourage this.

As I explained previously, the idea behind the agreement was to forgo intensive analysis (and inevitable bickering) in favor of broad inclusiveness, thereby encouraging encyclopedic expansion instead of partisan debate. We used the qualifier "major" to avoid lumping in such events as the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest and World Series of Rock-Paper-Scissors, not to exclude one of the most popular sports in Ireland (or any other country). —David Levy 19:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC) The EuroBasket event doesn't fall under the agreement (because it isn't basketball's premier championship). I don't know whether the World Series of Poker is widely considered poker's premier championship. —David Levy 22:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pause for now I would like to see this idea put into place. BUT can we wait for the consensus in the three above before making a decision? doktorb wordsdeeds 22:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The hurling discussion should be paused, as that item's eligibility for removal is contingent upon the principle's elimination.
 * The WSOP is poker's premier championship.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We've never precisely defined "major sport", which has rarely been a point of contention. (See my reply to Hot Stop.) If you regard this as too vague, you probably should support the proposal to eliminate the principle. —David Levy 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC) But again, none of that matters. What matters is whether there's consensus for it now. This proposal's purpose is simply to determine that. If the the principle were a brand new idea, this would make very little difference. (Its longstanding existence is relevant only to the argument that it's worked well.) If you regard the principle as sensible, you should oppose the proposal to eliminate it. Someone who regards the principle as insensible should support the proposal to eliminate it. It's that simple. —David Levy 00:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current principle prevents a great deal of bickering and broadens the sporting content highlighted, without in itself adding too much burden to ITN. If the underlying issue is that there are to many sporting events on ITN, it seems to me that the problem is more to do with several sports having stretched to 4+ competitions a year, than some sports having 1 (or fewer) competitions a year.ReadingOldBoy (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends. The terms "premier championship" and "major sport" should be defined first, then we'd talk. – H T  D  14:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Premier championship" refers to a championship widely regarded as that of the sport's highest level of competition. (Occasionally, multiple events share this distinction.)
 * I agree with Howard here. The definition of "major sport" is particularly relevant, because I can imagine many people feel sports like netball, handball, and hurling (and probably more) aren't major sports.  So debating this is largely irrelevant to me.   Hot Stop   14:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) It'll be interesting on how "major sport" will be defined, if anyone has the guts to do it, that will include American football while excluding the likes of netball and Gaelic games. On handball, I'm now a firm believer that it's a massive sport, albeit massively Eurocentric; in fact it is more Eurocentric than the "Big 4 sports" in North America except American football are American-centric. – H T  D  14:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the hurling discussion, the idea behind the agreement was to forgo intensive analysis (and inevitable bickering) in favor of broad inclusiveness, thereby encouraging encyclopedic expansion instead of partisan debate. We used the qualifier "major" to avoid lumping in such events as the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest and World Series of Rock-Paper-Scissors.  —David Levy 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Defined or not, there was, is, and will be bickering. – H T  D  14:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was much worse before. —David Levy 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because I don't oppose Gaelic games nominations anymore. :P – H T  D  15:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant "before this principle was established". —David Levy 17:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even after the principle was established people still bickered, this time on whether "X" was a major sport. – H T  D  02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that occur often. —David Levy 02:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably every time the GAA final rolled along, or when there's a new wave of suggestions at this talk page. Super Bowl arguments aren't really on whether it's a major sport anyway... – H T  D  02:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You became active at ITN around the time that the agreement took effect, so you might not realize how much worse the problem was until then. —David Levy 03:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been observing for at least a year before I got active so I had a pretty good idea. I remember one World Series nomination getting badly beaten up. Anyway, discussions are quite rare, so every time such discussions flare up, it almost always ends up on that topic. – H T  D  03:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This proposal could save WP:ITN/R from succumbing to systemic bias, which it appears is unfortunately happening with all the silly removal nominations above.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Am I missing something here? This seems to be a proposal to make no alteration to any policy or guideline. A principle of whose existence no evidence can be found is not, for practical purposes, a working principle in the first place. On the other hand, the idea that ITNR for sporting events should include the most important sporting events in the most important sports looks like a no-brainer. What's the motivation for opposing a principle that's both officially non-existent and at the same time obviously sensible? Formerip (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you're getting the idea that this is "a principle of whose existence no evidence can be found". It's been applied (and to my knowledge, never directly challenged) since 2006.  Various archives contain discussion of it dating back to about that time (just not the original discussion, for whatever reason).


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Guideline?
I've been thinking. Is it perhaps time to downgrade ITNR from guideline status? It seems ITNR is routinely used to force certain items through, and once an item is listed on ITNR it is incredibly difficult to remove. Not treating these as guidelines set in stone seems to me to be a good idea? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have hit the nail on the head, I would tend to support such a proposal. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 14:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am for this proposal, though I would like to see how this would work in practice, and how the procedures surrounding ITNR posts would change. If I were to post an election in Marshall Islands or the results of the World Netball Championships, what standard of consensus do we need to remove it from an ITN posting? Colipon+ (Talk) 14:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because, as far as I can tell, all this means is that a normal ITNR item would have to go through the same ITNC process, but presumably required a lower standard of consensus to pass. User Lihaas alluded to this earlier as effectively categorizing ITNR items in the same threshold of consensus-requirement as 'minority topics'. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't even need consensus; all you need is an update! – H T  D  04:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should remain a guideline, for the simple reason that any changes to the list should reflect consensus on this talk page and ITN/C. Removing that designation makes it into a free-for-all of randomly adding and removing items. Modest Genius talk 18:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be downgraded, and I hope we can work towards agreeing to do so. Unfortunately two things come to mind - the "ITN/R is sacred" brigade will come down here with great vengeance, and as recent discussions have proven, we can't seem to agree on anything even after months of discussion doktorb wordsdeeds 05:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now, ITN/DC suggests that "Deaths should not be added without consensus at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.". Why not just use the same for ITNR? It's simple, it works. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you need ITN/R at all then? Khuft (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Question from my side, not having followed the discussions in the previous months / years: is it really so difficult to remove sth from ITN/R? Hurling was mentioned - when was the last attempt to have it removed? Shouldn't we just try again, as a test? Regarding the elections: this seems to me to be rather an issue of changing the ITN/R rule instead of deleting something - lots of people would like elections of small countries to be removed, but there seems to be no consensus (yet) on defining exactly which ones to exclude. Instead of trying to wreck the whole ITN/R edifice, why not go back to that concrete problem? Khuft (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I, and a few other brave souls who deserve barnstars from me, tried FOR YEARS to remove both hurling and Gaelic football and I gave up. I don't know how it even got there. (can somebody look on this?) I'm not even discussing it now (my comments on the Hurling section below aren't even related to hurling lol). – H T  D  12:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We should move the requirement of automatic posting to lower consensus for all of ITNR and/or re-evaluate everythign on ITNR as some of them seem o have had no discussion at all.Lihaas (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's "lower consensus"? – H T  D  17:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Radical idea to overhaul ITN
Discussion happening WT:ITN which may interest people. -- Jayron  32  01:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will reply to this in more detail on the page it is currently being discussed, but I just have to say, Hurling really opened a huge can of worms, and clearly demonstrates that without an objective set of criteria or clearly laid out goals for ITN, both of which are discussed and accepted by the community, ITN debates about the vast majority of topics can go on forever, without any basis to say whether one argument is better than the next. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that there already are clearly laid out goals which can be found at WP:ITN?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Like I pointed out before, it is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." This, to me, is not "clearly laid out". It is extremely vague and arguments always ensue over what is considered "wide interest". Colipon+ (Talk) 02:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, in the ITNR guidelines, all I could find for a definition is "Certain regularly recurring events are considered of sufficient interest to be placed on ITN every time they occur". Again, "sufficient interest" is extremely vague and totally subjective. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm on board for change.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm with Bzweebl's first comment on this one. I believe having broad guidelines is preferable to a clear set of rules; the latter is - in my experience - not helpful in settings where you have constant change and evolution (as is inherently the case is a news-related environment). Khuft (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

[Attention needed] A boatload of proposals:
ITNR items will be removed if they've met either of these conditions: Furthermore, These do not concern any specific event and was to be as general as possible, but on Proposals 1 & 2 there might be removals from the ITNR list. I'd make a list of affected events later if no one beats me to it let's pretend we don't know these events are and discuss the proposals solely on merit. – H T  D  13:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1: Had not been posted for the last 2 occurrences the event happened.
 * Proposal 2: Had never been posted but are already listed.
 * Proposal 3: Any new addition to the ITNR list has to be nominated for ITN/C first and has to be successfully posted for 2 consecutive times when the event happened.
 * Rationales:
 * ITNR items that had not been posted for the last 3 occurrences the event happened:
 * No one is updating and/or nominating the event.
 * There's no interest from editors in doing work.
 * ITNR items that had never been posted but are already listed.
 * There's no prerequisite test in ITN/C
 * Discussion levels at ITNR are too low to be considered binding, vs. the quite heavily trafficked ITN/C page.
 * Additions to the ITNR list:
 * To prevent a stealthy addition to the ITNR list without a bigger participation of other users who may not even knew such discussions happened.
 * To make sure each new event will pass at ITN/C.

I think Proposal 3 makes sense. But I doubt anything falls under proposals 1 and 2 — ITNR items have generally always been posted regardless, simply because "it's on ITNR". —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but some aren't because they're not updated. i remember that the Super Rugby had been bypassed several times already due to lack of updates. – H T  D  13:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose proposal 1. That past occurrences didn't result in sufficient article updates / nominations is an invalid consideration. It's attributable primarily to systemic bias, which is something that we seek to counter, not promote. (Adding an additional barrier to inclusion would do the latter, and I see absolutely no benefit.) Proposals 2 and 3 have some merit, but they're incompatible (unless an exception is added to the wording) with the "premier championship(s) of every major sport" principle currently under discussion. —David Levy 14:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Being listed on ITNR should be a privilege, not a right; if no one's adding prose on a supposedly automatic ITN item, then it doesn't deserve to be here. It's not entirely a CSB issue; these items are supposed to be ITN shoo-ins, which means there should be enough references to go around to build an article. Again, if there are no references, you can't update it, which means it can't pass ITN/C.
 * As for the, Proposals 2 and 3, I fail to see how the "major championship" issue fits in. Whether it's a "major sport's" championship or not (this is not even exclusive to sports). Each ITNR item should undergo a normal ITN/C discussion at least twice before people here start discussing for its inclusion in the list. If it hasn't be added ever but is on the list, I fail to see how there is consensus to be added in the first place. More so on possible additions in the list if it hasn't been discussed first in ITN/C. – H T  D  13:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's neither. It's simply a documentation of consensus (and nothing more).
 * This is a list of events deemed sufficiently significant. The quality of the related articles (and updates thereto) is an equally important consideration, but it has nothing to do with ITN/R.
 * The events are considered sufficiently noteworthy. There is no assumption that the related articles meet ITN's criteria.
 * Has anyone even asserted that any of the events lack sufficient coverage in reliable sources? (Of course, some might be in languages other than English.)
 * Both proposals directly contradict the current, longstanding practice of automatically listing the premier championship of every major sport. That doesn't mean that these suggestions are unreasonable, but it's literally impossible for them to coexist with that principle (unless an explicit exception is made).  —David Levy 06:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned principle has been abandoned, so my above comments regarding proposals 2 and 3 are moot. —David Levy 06:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of nom'ing each individual ITNR item for removal, lets just review it altogether and decide which of ALL items should stay and which removed.
 * I would also support making ITNR into lower consensus than any sort of mandatory posting subject to update aloneLihaas (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I previously said to purge everything, but was persuaded to backtrack on that. – H T  D  13:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both proposals directly contradict the current, longstanding practice of automatically listing the premier championship of every major sport. That doesn't mean that these suggestions are unreasonable, but it's literally impossible for them to coexist with that principle (unless an explicit exception is made).  —David Levy 06:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned principle has been abandoned, so my above comments regarding proposals 2 and 3 are moot. —David Levy 06:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of nom'ing each individual ITNR item for removal, lets just review it altogether and decide which of ALL items should stay and which removed.
 * I would also support making ITNR into lower consensus than any sort of mandatory posting subject to update aloneLihaas (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I previously said to purge everything, but was persuaded to backtrack on that. – H T  D  13:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Status
As there has been no activity lately, and seemingly no conclusion, to the discussions above (Hurling, Poker, Euroleague Basketball, Principle), where does this leave us? Everything stays as it is for now? Khuft (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I can only imagine that those discussions get closed off as "no consensus" and we are back to where we began. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You complained that such discussions "rarely [gather] enough participation". Then you declined to comment on the principle's proposed elimination, except to denigrate the effort by opining that you "don't see any real purpose to [the] discussion".  Now you're back to expressing frustration at our failure to establish consensus.  —David Levy 01:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The principal discussion is irrelevant to the hurling and poker discussions as the issue is whether those are major sports to begin with. And with Euroleague it's irrelevant too as the NBA is that sport's top competition.   Hot Stop   03:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've explained, the idea behind the principle was to forgo intensive analysis (and inevitable bickering) in favor of broad inclusiveness, thereby encouraging encyclopedic expansion instead of partisan debate. We used the qualifier "major" to avoid lumping in obviously minor competitions (such as the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest and the World Series of Rock-Paper-Scissors).  In the intended context, hurling and poker aren't even borderline.
 * Indeed, the EuroBasket discussion is unrelated to this agreement, as I noted above. —David Levy 04:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned Poker is off, Euroleague stays on. Tickers are out, by the looks of things, consolidated blurbs are looking dicey. It seems that I am also starting to suffer from the rather loud and clear realisation that nothing is going to happen. What is the point of a process "build by consensus" in which no party is willing to concede? doktorb wordsdeeds 14:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like we were able to remove hurling and poker... I would say a few other sports items also need to be axed from ITNR. Gaelic football, World Women's Handball Championships, Grand National, Heineken Cup, perhaps AFL Grand Final and Grey Cup can go too. I wanted to gauge from the community about whether I should post all of these events in one go, or list them separately. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do it separately, but one at a time. – H T  D  03:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The closure of Hurling an dpoker was highly dubious. the onus (vby precendet) has been on the challenger to prove something not that it was closed to "lack of consensus to keep" when it was the status qup.Lihaas (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove World Women's Handball Championship from ITNR
In the spirit of the continued prodding of less notable ITNR sporting events, I move that we hereby remove World Women's Handball Championship from ITNR. There is no indication on the article about the notability of the event, the size of its audience, the amount of sponsorship, nor anything that establishes it as a topic of "wide interest". This does not preclude its nomination on ITNC, and I cannot help but stress this point. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removal per nom. Why not have the FIBA World Championship for Women on ITNR instead?  Hot Stop   19:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall that ever being on ITN, and it may not have ever even been nominated. So why do you believe that should be added, given it may have never gotten consensus for posting, let alone consensus to be posted every time? Also, whether this gets removed or not should have no bearing on whether that event is added or not. So, you are free to start a parallel discussion if you'd like. ITN/R is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of recurring events posted on ITN; in other words, the fact that something is not on here does not mean it can't get posted, and the fact that something is on here does not mean it must get posted. --  tariq abjotu  23:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2010 discussion -- there's barely a consensus to add it, it's just that no one updated it so they we could've tested it better. This shouldn't be the place though for discussing its inclusion. – H T  D  22:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal ... because that's such an appalling Support post. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That (Hot Spot's comment) indicates a fundamental failure to understand ITN/R. There is no fixed number of slots such that removing one allows another to go up in its stead. While I suspect that this is a big deal in much of Europe, and in a systemic bias free Wikipedia would probably be a regular, I doubt it can be assumed that it would pass ITN/C without any non-frivolous opposition, so it probably should be removed. HiLo's comment shows a total lack of respect for ITN/R: is he really saying that a poorly phrased oppose is a reason to put this event on ITN every year? Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Of course not. Perhaps in a culturally very different way, I too was trying to highlight the silliness of Hot Spot's comment. My goal is to raise the standard of discussion here, but perhaps irony was the wrong tool. As for the merits of this proposal, I don't know enough about the sport to comment fairly. I hope others consider that possibility with their own level of knowledge before they make absolute judgements here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just how many women's handball "experts" are there? – H T  D  01:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an incredibly ignorant comment. The sport may not be very popular where you are, or indeed where I am, but of course it has its followers and people who are thoroughly informed on the matter.  Nothing at all to do with whether we believe that the event should be listed at ITN/R.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not even referring to handball experts on where I am. Like experts on women's handball on places it is widely popular. – H T  D  08:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support removal There is no evidence provided, and to my knowledge there has been very little put forward, to suggest this event is notable enough for a 'free pass'.  Given that we are trying to resolve the inherent issues within ITN/R, the balance of argument is not convincing enough to land on the 'keep' side. I am conscious that it may be seen as unfortunate that we are demoting a women's only event but it appears such a factor is of secondary concern in this case doktorb wordsdeeds 04:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait It's blatantly obvious that there is little knowledge of the game among those who have so far responded. (That includes me.) Obviously there are people keen on the sport, but they aren't regular posters here. That's a perfect example of systemic bias. To reduce that bias, we must wait longer. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this has only been up for not even 2 days, I'm sure that no-one will object to keeping this up a little longer. The next event will be in 2013, so there's really no rush to come to a quick consensus. Khuft (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We can keep it longer on here, that is certain. But just to put it out there, that while this is undoubtedly an assertion and a personal opinion, but if none of the posters here so far have even a cursory knowledge of the event, perhaps it is a good indication that it is not that notable. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point of my "experts" comment above, since they'd know where women's handball is in the pecking order of sports, heck even women's sport. Was this even nominated in ITN/C and was posted? – H T  D  22:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure that would help that much, to be honest. What opinion do you think "experts of women's handball" will have regarding this nomination? Probably the same as the one hurling experts would have had about the hurling nomination. What we need is some kind of neutral info (if such a thing exists) on the popularity of women's handball, and within that subset of the popularity of this particular event. Though as Colipon mentions: if no such info is readily available, this may be an info in itself... Khuft (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for a "neutral expert", if there's one; someone who knows the sport without necessarily being a superfan. More like a journalists specializing in women's handball. – H T  D  02:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To differentiate it from other sports called handball around the world, this sport is often known as European Handball. That is, it's primarily played where English is not the first language. (The same applies to some extent for hurling.) Guess what? Those people, for whom English is not their primary language, are probably not frequent visitors to this page. Are other language Wikipedias a potential source here? (Don't look at me. I stopped learning French 47 years ago and have never used it in practice!) HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have to go fishing for that information. Standard nominations on ITN/C are not afforded this privilege. --  tariq abjotu  03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that you're saying that we should ignore sports that aren't played where there's plenty of English language speakers. I'm not comfortable with that approach. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is what Tariq meant to say. In any case, I am trying to think of a sport that is extremely popular in non-English speaking countries but not popular outside of the English-speaking world, and finding this difficult, since almost all sports that can be said to have 'worldwide' appeal are played to some extent in English-speaking countries. The reverse is not always true: Canadian football, AFL, and Gaelic football do not have much of an audience outside of their countries (the same could probably be said for American Football, though NFL has a much larger audience by orders of magnitude compared to the other three), so in my view AFL, CFL and Gaelic represent a good example of systemic bias. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Examples are kabaddi, sepak takraw and sumo. I'd measure that kabaddi is more massive than any GAA event. There's an argument though that more Irishmen are nuts over GAA than Americans are with the NFL... – H T  D  14:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree about light-hearted the Irish GAA comment :) Though I don't think NFL supporters can be classified as anything less than "fanatic" about their sport; plus NFL has a large audience in Canada. Additionally, your examples are great. Though I'd point out that for all intents and purposes of Wikipedia systemic bias, India is an English-speaking country, whose editor base will begin to rival the size of the American editor base within the next few years. Sumo is a good example, as is sepak takraw. Though I'd argue that the former has a larger fanbase and higher commercial earnings, by several orders of magnitude. Nonetheless, I'd say that prima facie, both Sumo and Sepak Takraw probably have wider interest on an absolute basis than Canadian, Australian, and Gaelic football, all of which are sports played fairly exclusively within their countries of origin. Gaelic football especially should be removed from ITNR, apart from keeping it to appease Irish fans, I do not see any other substantive reason. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's stop pretending we're being objective when it's really pure parochialism. The definition of "played fairly exclusively within their countries of origin" applies just as much to American football as to those other codes you have just mentioned. It's just that there's a lot more Americans than most other folks, and they've have an equivalently larger impact where non-exclusiveness occurs. And there's no way we'll remove American football, is there? Does that fact that there's more Americans make their sports more important? that's really a key question here. I tried discussing this over at ITN's Talk page, but it got a bit defensive and was never resolved. HiLo48 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, it does, in absolute terms. Assessing 'importance' is obviously subjective, but a few reasonable criteria does not harm anyone. This might include size of audience, commercial interests, league earnings, newsworthiness outside of sporting community, etc. If we assign a number to each of these, it would be clear that NFL outweighs the other leagues by a factor of at least 10-1, probably more. Thus, 'orders of magnitude'. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just get back to the discussion at hand; we're not talking about American Football here, we're talking about women's handball. I personally am not from an English-speaking country but from Continental Europe; while I'd definitely agree that Handball is quite popular in various European countries, the same is not really true about female handball. Male handball can often be watched on German TV for example; I've never witnessed women's handball on TV. Quite a few friends of mine follow male handball, but I know no-one who tracks female handball. I may of course be biased because I'm a male myself, but nevertherless I would tend towards removing this from ITN/R. Aficionados of female handball (who obviously do not seem to be frequent visitors to the ITN/R Talk page) may still argue their case in ITN/C. Khuft (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- I generally am strict when it comes to removing items from ITN/R, but after a small amount of research it seems to me that this is not notable enough. This should not have a free pass into ITN.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist This is the kind of minority subject that gives ITNR a bad name. Sure, there will be a few avid followers but this is not a major sport on a worldwide basis by any stretch of the imagniation. ITNR is not the place for pet interests. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC).
 * American football "is not a major sport on a worldwide basis" either, but we'll probably keep it here ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with HiLo48. Although I share your opinion that this should be removed, "major sport on a worldwide basis" doesn't sound like a good criteria to use.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that handball is one of the more popular sports played by women in non-English speaking countries. I know a few Americans who followed the last world championships, so interest is certainly not zero.  Given that there are very few women's sports on the list, I don't see any harm in handball getting one story every other year.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Add European Trophy Finals
I'm proposing that European Trophy Finals be added to the "Ice Hockey" section of this page. European Trophy is an annually held tournament involving 32 teams from seven European countries. The playoffs, Red Bulls Salute (main sponsor Red Bull), gets good amount of coverage in newspapers and on the respective clubs' websites. The Final is likely the most interesting game in the entire tournament. Hey Mid  (contribs) 10:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even as an ice hockey fan, I don't think we can justify including this. It doesn't receive widespread coverage, it's never been posted through nomination at WP:ITN/C, and the Gagarin Cup is arguably higher-profile. Much as I would love to see European ice hockey attain a higher profile, I don't think it's notable enough for ITNR at present. Modest Genius talk 11:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Page view stats for 2011 European Trophy on December 2011. – H T  D  01:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)