Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 8

Film awards
Are there any African or Latam awards shows that are big amongst the continent? We have Europe, USA, Inda and it seems little biased to only have that. Perhaps the Nigerian awards (biggest film industry in Africa) or a pan-African award can be ITNR. Ditto for razil/Mexico (presumably the biggest) ro a pan-Latam awards show. For that matter isnt there a pan-Asian show...i m pretty sure i heard of it once.(Lihaas (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)).
 * None of these of gone through ITNC (at least I can't remember them) so they shouldn't be added to ITNR until they sucessfully clear that hurdle.  Hot Stop   15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Add Olympics 100 metres Final
I propose that we add the Olympics 100 Metres final to the ITN/R list. Other than the opening and closing ceremonies this is the marquee event for the Olympics. This is one of the most viewed sports events in the world, if not the most viewed, with truly international interest. The estimated global audience for Usain Bolt's victory last Sunday was two billion and even assuming the figures have been exagerrated dwarfs other significant ITN/R events such as The World Cup Final or The Superbowl. In addition other than a number of Marathon races, which I would argue of less interest than the 100 Metres final, there are no athletics events on ITN/R. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that inclusion at ITN/R is intended to be restricted to items for which it can be assumed that the notability element of passing ITN/C, and given that the event proposed has just failed to gain consent at ITN/C on the basis of notability (in the context of the vast number of events that make up the Olympics), I really cannot see how it can possibly be added. Kevin McE (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was aware that it failed ITN/C, I was one of those who posted in support of it. I have to say that it is one of the more absurd decisions I've seen there. The New York Marathon is posted annually, but I doubt that many outside the athletics fraternity would be able to recall who won it last November, whereas Bolt's victory is likely to resonate for years to come. By comparison last year's New York City marathon article, an ITN, was viewed by a peak of around 27,500 whereas this years 100 Metres Final had a peak readership of around 51,000. The idea that it's just another race amongst hundreds of others just doesn't hold water.yorkshiresky (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, it is hard not to see this as an attempt to circumvent the possibility of the proposal failing at ITN/C next time around by having it established at ITN/R. That cannot be the purpose of ITN/R. This is a way of smoothing progress through ITN/R, not of dodging that discussion.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Object Running 100m in sub 10 second time is impressive. So is shooting 99/100 targets, or achieving gold in the modern pentathlon, or scoring a double hat-trick in football. ITN/R is stuffed full as it is with events which might be voted out where the opportunity made available to do so: adding another seems highly suspect. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact that the 100m final failed to make ITN this year suggests that it is not indisputably supported by consensus. Khazar2 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove world records
Current text reads A world record (in an event such as aquatics or athletics) that is broken either: by an unusually large margin, after a very long time period, or in a highly publicized event (e.g., 100 metre dash)

Without prejudice to whether world records should or should not make it onto ITN, I suggest that the above should not be on this list for two main reasons.

1) Open to interpretation What other sports are sufficiently like athletics or aquatics? How large a margin is unusual?  How long is a very long time? How much media attention determines a very highly publicised event?  If inclusion in ITN/R is to state that there is no question about the event's notability, then there can be no question about whether an event meets ITN/R.

2) Doubt about being deemed to have met importance criteria There is currently very active debate on ITN/C about whether the women's 4x100 m should be posted on ITN.  Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, it seems to fatally disprove the premise that the item can be considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur.

Of course the breaking of world records can still be proposed, and I would imagine that they will from time to time be passed and make the front page, but I would propose that this inclusion in ITN is neither logical nor justified by the evidence of overwhelming consensus that ITN/R implies. Kevin McE (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removal. I generally support these records appearing, but there's no use in having such vague guidelines on ITN/R. Today's debate over the women's relay showed that these guidelines are not supported by consensus in any case. Khazar2 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The controversy over the relay nomination has only really happened because it has come in the context of the Olympics, so I don't think it necessarily shows a lack of support for inclusion in ITNR generally. It's perfectly conceivable that we could make an exception but retain the rule. I do agree though, that the wording is very much open to interpretation, so that most discussions will effectively boil down to a normal ITNC discussion. So, unless the wording can be improved, why not just leave it to ITNC? Formerip (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If things are open open to interpretation over whether ITNR status applies that itself defeats the whole purpose of an ITNR listing, since the debate then legitimately becomes about whether ITNR applies. The premise of them is too vague to allow it to be definitively asserted.  I'm reminded of |this discussion, where the nominator definitively asserted ITNR was valid based on all three categories but I countered that it didn't fit any of them.  The possibility of such discussions simply shows how weak the current criteria are.
 * As a framing for debate on records, similar to what we have on deaths for instance, they would be fine, but they are not something that can be definitively asserted although the tendency will always be for the nominator to portray them as such. As others have noted, how large is a large margin?  How long standing is a long standing record?  As for highly publicised events that are one the same level as the 100m, just how many are there?  It appears to me that there are very few records that are in the same league.  In fact the only one I can think of that could fit the bill would be the land speed record. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Support Removal I was dubious about accepting any world record nominations which currently sit in ITN/C and I fully support removal of that line from ITN/R. It seems highly dubious - arbitrary, to be polite - to suggest athletics world records as the only valid nomination, as that is the implication from the current line. Amending the line would only widen the net so far that ITN would become ITN&S with a month, with sports fans eager to push every measurement they can into the front page (and that's not exactly manageable as it is). If the consequence of removal is to give world records the same status as non-ITN/R nominees, so be it. If it's good enough, it can be argued for. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. This proposal seems suspiciously aimed at the 100 meter relay nomination.

Anyway, there's always subjectivity in discussion ITNR noms. While the world record ITNR listing is not entirely precise, it does provide three clear criteria to judge. If we remove that, then ITN nominations from the related sports become even more subjective and less based on any established criteria. ITN needs more criteria, not less.

In the case of the relay race currently being discussed, I think the ITNR wording in fact helps deciding whether it's worth posting. One of its criteria, a very long period of time clearly applies in the case of a 27-year old record--no reasonable person could argue otherwise. Thus, really, the ITNR status should not be in dispute. Of course, if it were a 10-year record, it would be less clear and more open to interpretation. But nearly all ITN noms are open to interpretation anyway. If there were no INTR listing for world records, the 4x100 world record would have been nominated anyway, and we would have no established criteria to judge it by, only wildly subjective and sometimes nationalist opinions posted by editors at the spur of the moment. In short, you would take something that is 'vague and unspecific' and make it even more vague and unspecific. Judging what merits ITN posting is far to vague as it is. --Johnsemlak (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't presume to ascribe motives to my proposals. This is the only item in ITN/R that is subjective: others are very specific tournaments, awards or positions.  The whole point of ITN/R is that it is absolutely cut and dried, and does not require interpretation.  Nominations that require interpretation are perfectly welcome at ITN/C, but their notability will need to argued for.  Obviously, margin of beating previous record, longevity of previous record, and profile of the event will add weight to the argument in favour of adding the occasion to the template, but if those features are needed to persuade the community to give consensus to the importance of the event, then the importance of the event cannot be taken for granted.  And the current discussion proves that, under some circumstances, such as occurring within the midst of dozens of world records being broken, even these features do not guarantee such an overwhelming consensus of importance that it can be considered a certainty that that consensus will be forthcoming.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Kevin I apologize for not showing Good faith and will strike that comment. I do think it would be better to discuss this not in the middle of a related nomination though.  I basically agree with your rationale that the world record criteria require interpretation and perhaps as such don't belong on ITNR (world records are also certainly not 'recurring'); that said, I strongly support keeping the wording as ITN criteria somewhere, as I think the criteria are useful and as I said ITN needs more criteria not less.  I imagine it was put in ITNR alongside other sports items because it was topically related, which makes sense.  So I think it's best just to leave it there.  As you said, there are many records being broken and the current wording on records clearly notes what to consider when deciding which records are notable enough.  I think that's worth keeping.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW (not very much from the look of that discussion), I think the 4x100 nom should be "grandfathered in" regardless of the result of this thread here. But that thread is likely to be de facto resolved before this one in any case, whether by posting or expiration. Khazar2 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be whated? in what? Kevin McE (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to your edit sumamry, 1953, apparently. Formerip (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Dates back to the US grandfather clause. Common here, but apparently hasn't caught on elsewhere. Khazar2 (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which still sheds no light on what on earth is being proposed. Kevin McE (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The notion of "grandfathering in" the nom in question means that, because it was proposed before any of the above discussion began and before any policy change that might result from it, it should be allowed to follow the guidelines as they were when it began, not when it finished. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you; but that's what's being asked for. GRAPPLE   X  22:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. I thought the dictionary and Wikipedia entries were sufficient background, but am happy to provide as many sources as necessary. In any case, Grapple X's explanation is correct. I simply meant to say that even if this discussion concludes before the 4x100 nom, I'd suggest not changing the rules for a nomination in the middle of it. Khazar2 (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One lives and learns... An admin will have to make a call on whether there is a consensus for or against the proposal on ITN/C at present: this discussion need not, and probably should not, impinge on that discussion. If it doesn't gain consensus, then appeal to ITN/R (which implies assumption of the gaining of consensus) serves only to undermine the point of ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support removal. This criteria has seemingly become an excuse for editors not to bother researching the subject of athletics before commenting on it at ITN/C. That's the only way you can explain how something like the women's 4*4 relay is ultimately considered more notable than David Rudisha's 800m run. It also quite ridiculously gives people a completely lame excuse to oppose events that are justifiable on media coverage alone, such as Bolt's double, based on the non-argument that it wasn't a world record. Get back to basics - if people want to oppose items based on their topic ignorance alone, or worse, their palpable dislike of athletics period, they need to be made to make that argument from first principles. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- When we have an overload of these, like Olympics and World Championships, it often gets ignored or misinterpreted anyway.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed per clear consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring. No comment on the merit, but someone else should do it for appearances sake.   Hot Stop   14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone could have done it, but Everyone said, "Someone should do it." While Everyone was waiting for Someone to act, Noone did it instead. Kevin McE (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed again by User:Grapple X. And endorsement from my side, I was uninvolved here. --Tone 15:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Add Holberg Prize
I propose we add the Holberg Prize. This is the equivalent of the Abel Prize and the Nobel Prizes for the social sciences, humanities and law, and is awarded to people like Jürgen Habermas, Julia Kristeva and Ronald Dworkin. The Norwegian government has created two prizes to complement the Nobel prizes, namely the Abel Prize and the Holberg Prize. There are currently multiple prizes on ITN/R for the sciences and mathematics, but no prizes for the social sciences, humanities or law. There is only one Holberg Prize awarded each year. Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see why we should have the Abel Prize and not the Holberg Prize - although there are two alternative ways of fixing that. Formerip (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This prize isn't major world news, but it is major academic news, and therefore a good topic for an encyclopedia front page. Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be unanimous consensus to include this item. Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion hasn't gone on long enough, and you shouldn't be making the call. For the record I oppose as this has never been included through ITNC yet, so we can't determine if consensus truly exists.  '''[[User talk:Hot Stop| Hot Stop

]]''' 17:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Has this even been proposed through ITNC?
 * I would say that getting something through there is a necessary first step before anything new is added here.
 * Accepting HotStop's assertion that this has not gone through ITNC I oppose this.
 * FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I note that this award has not even been included in the prose of the articles of the two most recent winners, which suggests that it is not that important in the view of editors interested enough in the field to edit those articles. However, it would be interesting to see what happens if the 2013 award is nominated at INT/C, and if support then is overwhelming, this may be worth revisiting. Kevin McE (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Major award for its academic field. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless/until it is successfully nominated at ITN/C. I don't think this should always be a requirement for this page, but in this particular case it does seem like a good idea. Modest Genius talk 13:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Add Non-Aligned Movement Summit
I propose to add Non-Aligned Movement summits such as 16th Summit of the Non Aligned Movement which is held every three years. Consisting of 120 member states, and 21 observer countries which represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations's members and contain 55% of the world population, it is the most important gathering of the Developing Countries. I think it really deserves to add under "Economic and political summits" sub-section. -- Seyyed(t-c) 13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, Wakari07 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to have something here that does not demonstrate the ability to easily and uncontroversially pass trough ITN/C. The current proposal, although it may succeed (and I have supported it) certainly does not demonstrate that. Kevin McE (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are criteria: like, the NAM Summit is, like, now. Wakari07 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Premature I agree with Kevin McE here - the general rule is to see if it can pass at ITN/C first. IF so there is something to consider.  Regardless, one expression of support and three days simply isn't enough to start adding things to the list.  Consider that even a deletion discussion runs for a full seven days and with only a single opinion expressed would probably be re-listed.  This is a change of guideline rather than a routine editorial decision, and the threshold for inclusion is that it would pass at ITN/C every time it is nominated.  That can't be legitimately asserted here yet. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Given failure of recent nomination at ITN/C, this cannot possibly be considered ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Modest Genius talk 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Question I could find no article for the 15th summit? Are these held totally at random? --IP98 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove Venice Film Festival
Although it has just been posted, that was far more in deference to this page than because there was support for the nomination on the basis of its importance. That is surely not the way ITN/r should work: incluion here is based on the assumption that importance is so obvious that it is not even worth discussing at ITN/C, and that importance threshhold is indisputable. That certainly does not seem to be the case here. Kevin McE (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Broadly agree. Colipon+ (Talk) 07:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to this. I disagree with the accuracy of the nomination – not a single editor supported per ITN/R without also giving a qualitative reason for why they believed the event was important. While I agree with your line of thinking in general (although I would suggest that WP:NFOOTY is a far more blatant, disgusting and problematic misuse of a guideline), the Venice film festival is commonly seen as the second most prestigious one behind Cannes. There is an argument that on a global basis Venice is seen as being an equal of Cannes, given that English-speaking films historically do better at the latter. I have made a case above as to why this event is fairly important within its field, but it is impossible to give anyone's arguments significant weight unless we are working from an agreed baseline from at least one field. Without a baseline, it's simply "I think this is important" vs "I don't". All three participants in this discussion so far are football fans, so let's use sport. After all, sport and film are both huge, right? I look at the sort of coverage we give to sport at ITN/R, compared to seven articles for film (not all of which always get posted), and it's difficult to justify going after one of relatively few film articles. —WFC— 07:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. at ITNC you cite a lack of unanimity for your decision to come here. I think it is therefore relevant to point out that the only person opposed to posting was supportive of posting the chess olympiad, which is generally seen as the second highest profile chess event. —WFC— 07:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what NFOOTY or chess have to do with this. I note that the word Venice, in the search box for the ITN/R talk archive, has no results, which suggests that it was added with no discussion.  I have nothing against the Venice festival, and if it is proposed and supported in the future at ITN/C on its own merits, that's fine, but I don't see that the confident assumption of consensus on importance is applicable here (and I suspect that the same could be said of many of the sports events listed here, which should probably be tested at some time, but that is not relevant to this discussion). Kevin McE (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that there is already a disgusting level of systemic bias towards sports (and I note that yet another sport fan has weighed in below). Until this is dealt with, it is absolutely unacceptable to knowingly entrench that bias even more, by eroding further the coverage of equally popular but far more modestly covered fields. —WFC— FL wishlist 05:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I cannot vouch for others, I am by no means trying to change any balance further towards sports, and I do not appreciate the implicit accusation (I have an interest in sport therefore I seek to make ITN/R more sport-orientated; that is by no means true and you will find many more comments from me in the archive of this page proposing removal of sport than other events): I brought it here because there was an apparent inconsistency between the opinions of importance at ITN/C and the purpose of ITN/R, and envisage myself doing the same for sports events in the future. Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with removing all film festivals from the list. Unlike awards shows (the Oscars for example) festivals are mostly watched by critics and insiders.  Remember, even if they get removed, they can still go through ITNC.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   01:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal Venice is the oldest film festival in the world and second most notable after Cannes. The festival and award gets lots of news coverage across the globe and is easily a contender for ITNR.  Lugnuts  And the horse 08:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with you: the issue is whether the reasons that you state are sufficiently recognised, with sufficient unanimity, at ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with ITNR, so I am curious about how common an event needs to be so it can be listed. For example, I think that the literature entries would have less press and/or popular awareness than the Venice Film Festival. Are there any limits in particular to be applied to these kinds of categories? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What was the !vote count at the ITN/C discussion? – H T  D  14:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Full discussion here. The only opposition came from a user who on the very same day nominated the year's second biggest chess event. —WFC— FL wishlist 14:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was one "lean towards" support, two supports that were described as conditional on ITN/R, two clear supports and one clear oppose. The posting was justified, and I didn't, and wouldn't, challenge it: the challenge is as to whether that level of support justifies the standing assumption implicit in ITN listing.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We should not judge editors' !votes on the basis of other nominations that they have made, and given that the chess received unanimous support, that comment is as disrespectful as it is irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal though TIFF is second behind Cannes, Venice is a close third, with BIFF rounding out what seems to be the four most important film festivals on the calendar. --IP98 (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove All-Ireland Senior Football Championship
Proposal:

To remove from ITN/R All-Ireland Senior Football Championship. At the next time this event occurs, it will have to be nominated and discussed as a normal event, not something with a free pass.

Justification:

Each nomination on ITN/C turns into an off-topic debate into ITN/R, whether Ireland as a state or Irish sport as an institution is notable enough for the front page, whether the result sees a significant readership bounce from being on the front page, the role of the front page, and for connected purposes. These discussions are almost always circular and tend to squeeze out less established editors with their tone and temper.

doktorb wordsdeeds 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to separate out concerns about Gaelic Football from concerns about Ireland generally. I'm not at all convinced that this championship needs to be in ITN/R, and provisionally support the proposal as drafted. But comments about this and other Irish stories give me great cause for concern. Scarcely a week goes by without someone rejecting a story on the basis that it would be better for a (real or imagined) other Wikipedia for the language or community affected. This is not Anglophonopedia. (Never mind the prevalence of English in Ireland.) The death of internationally renowned bestselling author Maeve Binchy didn't get a mention at ITN in part due to the vigorous slating that Ireland-related stories tend to receive. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While I echo the sentiment that non-Anglophone stories need to be given a fairer shake; Binchy's death was eventually given a small mention on ITN after much grouching from myself about the double standard shown at that time. I think the current proposal needs to make it clear how important it is or isn't for a sporting event to be the highest level of its sport; the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship is the highest competition in the sport, meaning that, viewership aside, it's an analogue to the Superbowl, the Grey Cup, et al. It's a sport without a huge international participation whose home country is its primary audience; much like those mentioned; and this is its premier championship. GRAPPLE   X  17:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What's this Ireland never gets ITN blurbs? Ireland easily gets ITN blurbs in comparison to its size. When was the last time we had a Singaporean sporting event in ITNR? That's right, never. – H T  D  04:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support on the condition that editors understand and accept that opposing it for the sole reason it is not ITN/R and nothing especially notable happened is not valid. See the discussion on hurling.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per GRAPPLE. This receives ample coverage in the media within Ireland, enough to indicate to me that it belongs on ITN/R.  Because it is likely to do so every year, I don't see why we should remove it from the list.  -- Jayron  32  17:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on the same grounds that I proposed removal of Venice festival above: response at ITN/C shows that support is not so overwhelming that it can be assumed. ITN/R should not be a tail that wags the ITN/C dog: it should serve ITN/C by making recurrent obvious landslide supports unnecessary, it should not undermine it by telling the community that it has already made a decision that it is not confident with at all.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I don't think this event has enough widespread attention to be an automatic as ITNR dictates.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   23:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removal I agree that it is a significant event in Ireland, but outside of Ireland, it is hardly covered (Source). Similar to the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, a highly popular event in one part of the world is not extremely popular in the rest of the world (maybe the NCAA tournament is a bad example of this compared to the All-Irish championship, but you get my idea). However, just because I believe that it should be taken off of ITN/R, simply removing it from ITN/R should not stop its nomination and possible posting if the consensus is there for future tournaments. I did support it's posting onto ITN because of it's popularity in Ireland. I believe that ITN/R should be reserved for sporting events that are no-brainers in terms of posting (Super Bowl, FIFA World Cup, etc). Like the NCAA tournament, it doesn't have to be on ITN/R, but if the consensus is there to post it, then it should be posted. --  Anc516  (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As what I've said earlier this year, this year's Super Bowl should've gotten a record TV audience in the UK, with the BBC giving it prime TV real estate. It has also been reported (although not on a huge scale) on newspapers, elsewhere, so you'd know that the Super Bowl has been in the news in several other places. In the case of NCAA basketball, it has even a smaller profile than the Super Bowl elsewhere, but there's still significant live TV coverage elsewhere such as in Canada, Australia and the Philippines. There's this impression that it's an "under-xx" tournament, but AFAIK, there's no age restriction here. And college basketball is quite a different sport than NBA or FIBA basketball with its different rules; think of it as Twenty20 in cricket, which is sure to get overwhelming support once it's world cup ends. – H T  D  02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the NCAA tournament, we've tried that argument before. For any U.S. sporting event, it is far and away the second most watched event by TV ratings after the super bowl.  The individual Final Four games are always the highest rated non-NFL single sporting events every year, and even the early rounds of the tournament regularly beat the NBA Finals in terms of interest and viewership.  By any actual statistical measurement, the NCAA tournament is easily the #2 sporting event in the U.S. after the NFL playoffs and Super Bowl, definately more popular and generating more interest than the NBA finals, but everytime it gets proposed for ITN (not ITNR, just each year at ITN), we get the flood of "zOMG oppose, amateur event!!!"  and it dies on the vine, almost unilaterally from people who have no exposure to the event.  And every year, I drag out the statistics from Neilsen, the polls regarding popularity, all the data I could possibly pile on, and people ignore that and say "It's amateur, so it doesn't count" or something like that.  So, yeah, in a perfect world, based on the data and interest level the NCAA tournament should be on ITNR.  That's proof positive this isn't a perfect world.  -- Jayron  32  03:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Gaelic games are amateur.
 * Also, someone used this as a reason why Gaelic games (or perhaps it was another event, I forgot) since this had massive attendance; college basketball and football also had massive attendances (they also sell out the venues). – H T  D  03:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we maybe eventually stop comparing all sporting event nominations to college basketball? GRAPPLE   X  04:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what should we compare it with? Rugby that has shitty page view stats? – H T  D  04:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, when people stop objecting to including the NCAA tournament at ITN for spurious and irrelevent reasons. The day that happens is the day that it stops being an issue. For the record, I supported and still do the inclusion of the Gaelic Football championship. It's clearly something the newsmedia in the relevent country (Ireland) thinks is a big deal, and since reliable sources say it is a big deal, who am I to object? -- Jayron  32  04:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I can understand posting about a sporting event that is supposedly cared upon by people half the size of the Northeast megalopolis (Try supporting posting which team wins the international AL East), I don't think anyone would support a similar event at a place with the similar size of the Central African Republic. – H T  D  04:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely would, if someone could show me both a quality article about it and enough reliable news sources which cover it in depth. -- Jayron  32  04:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, it's only you would supporting such thing. The others here wouldn't. – H T  D  04:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, I will still continue to work towards having objective standards about what gets through ITN, and not "I've never heard of it" or "I don't like it". -- Jayron  32  04:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm interested on what counts as "reliable news sources", though. – H T  D  15:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The exact same thing that does in Wikipedia articles. If we would use it as a source in a Wikipedia articles, and its a news source, like a newspaper, major news website, TV news report, whatever.  If the news sources are giving it substantial (not trivial, but substantial) coverage, then there is no grounds to object.  None whatsoever, aside from personal prejudices.  -- Jayron  32  17:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about, for a novel idea, letting a discussion stand on its own merits rather than trying to hang it on the frame of another item? Without comparing it to any other event, do you feel this particular event should be on ITN/R? It doesn't matter how many more people watch the NCAA finals or how many page views rugby articles get; they aren't the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship and that's all that's being debated here. Look at it in a vacuum and make a decision based on how you feel a high-level competition in a narrow field should be treated rather than trying to compare it to X, Y or Z. GRAPPLE   X  04:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. At time of posting this nomination had a string of supports and a single oppose so I don't see the argument that there isn't a consensus that this should be posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. Johnsemlak makes excellent point. Where were all those who wanted it removed from this list when this year's final was nominated at the candidates page by Rannpháirtí anaithnid? There was one oppose by someone that said "who cares" - and then had to have it explained to them that this was nothing to do with soccer!! Much like the attempts here to compare it to soccer in Singapore. If there is such a thing as "Singaporean football" - or a sport that originated in Singapore that the rest of the world might not know much about - someone who does know about it should nominate it as well, put in the work and the effort and so on. Would be better than moaning about why Singapore or any other country does not get enough mentions.
 * No one opposed it since every oppose vote for the last half-decade has turned into a discussion of Ted Kennedy proportions, and similar ITNR discussions weren't even clear in support of retention, but was bogged down in "no consensus, so keep" purgatory. – H T  D  12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's any use these are the type of players who also play against the AFL's best in the International Rules Series and they've a pretty good record against them (Australia 8-8 Ireland). Last year Ireland drubbed Australia by the record score of 130-65! Comparing it to college or under-age amateurism is ridiculous. The "amateur" status is deliberate for historic reasons - it is very much a professional set-up in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.102 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * College football is also deliberately amateur, although there had been calls to compensate the so-called "student-athletes". The interest dwarfs even some almost all professional sports in the US. – H T  D  12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal The English Wikipedia should cover a broad range of topics, particularly from countries with significant English speaking populations. There is more to life then soccer, cycling and cricket. --IP98 (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see that 4 million is significant enough. If we're into serving our audience, this should be our primary basis, not some prejudice that there should be a couple of Irish ITNR events solely because most people believe that it has "a significant English speaking population." – H T  D  12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ireland is on that list you refer to. It's well within the top 20 and going quite well for having "only 4 million" actually. There could be a few more from the likes of India or Brazil but who nominates them? Who works on them? Is Ireland to blame for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.104.255 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's on the top 20 all right, with 0.7% of the audience share; the countries ranked 8th-30th are separated by 0.6%, between 1.1% and 0.5% (lol). Germany doesn't have an ITNR event either. India has the IPL already, and as for Brazil, the language barrier might be a factor but there many fine Brazilian articles there has to be a few people who can work on a few pages for a few times a year. – H T  D  18:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal We are an encyclopaedia. Not a news outlet. The purpose of ITN is not to supply news but to further the educational goal of this project by linking to a broad range of articles and topical areas on current event. One angle through which ITN does that is by posting the results of the major tournaments in different types of football from around the world (American football, Australian rules football, Canadian football, Rugby Union football, Rugby League football, Association football, and Gaelic football). We do this not to inform our readers about the scores of games or sports they may be following, but to generate interest in a wide variety of articles and to show the depth of our encyclopaedia. -- RA (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How is any GAA event a "major tournament"? – H T  D  12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "...the major tournaments in different types of football ..." Note the definite article.
 * The match in question is number four on this list. Last year's hurling final is number eight on that list and this years is number 2 on this list. -- RA (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Gaelic football tournament would be like behind the likes of the Malaysian football league. And no one in his right mind would say that the League Cup or the Phoenix Open are ITNR material. – H T  D  13:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, "...the major tournaments in different types of football ..." The Malaysian football league is not a major tournament in association football.
 * Meanwhile, the finals of the two major tournaments in Gaelic games are both in the top 10 list for outdoor events and CNN rank the hurling final second only to the Olympic for "must see" sporting events to see this year (links above). -- RA (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a major football tournament in Malaysia which has a marginally larger en.wiki audience than Ireland. So OK, ditch "in Malaysia" and it should be last as it is Gaelic football's representative by default. Those CNN lists don't mean a thing as they're Anglo- and outdoor-centric. No Tour de France? Phoenix Open ahead of the Japan Series? What the? – H  T  D  15:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be a major football tournament in Malaysia but is the Malaysian football league one of, "...the major tournaments in different types of football ..."? No. It is not one of the major tournaments in association football.
 * The All-Ireland Senior Championship, however, is the premier tournament in Gaelic football. Just as the AFL Grand Final is the major tournament in Australian football, the Six Nations is one of the major tournaments in Rugby Union football, the Grey Cup is the major tournament in Canadian football, etc. -- RA (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is being a "premier tournament" of a sport that is labeled as "football" is enough, when other lesser tournaments from other "footballs" get more press? – H T  D  02:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal With one story a year not a significant reduction. This looks more like a "what the heck is this?"-case. But Gaelic football is also played in Canada, Australia and the USA. If there is lack of space, I suggest to wield the axe over a few USA subject to give due weight to world outside the USA. The Banner talk 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI the championship includes two teams from outside of the island of Ireland (London and New York). -- RA (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Times (New York or London) has a section devoted to Gaelic games. – H T  D  12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the London Times' report on the game. The New York Times did not report on the game this year but have long reported on Gaelic games in the New York area.
 * In either event, we are not a syndicate of the New York Times of the Times of London. We are an encyclopaedia. -- RA (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the London times might have reported on the Gaelic football final; it's like across the Irish Sea. And the NYT link you gave me issued reports as late as 1924(!). I'm referring to a GAA-centric page within its sports section, like this Times section for F1. It implies there's an in-depth coverage about it. We're not the either of the Times, but as a section about current events in an encyclopedia, there should be proof that there's enough in-depth coverage on the item. – H T  D  13:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The London Times' Gaelic games section is here (unfortunately, it's behind a paywall). WRT the New York Times' website, click "Next" ;-) -- RA (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's behind a paywall in the London Times, and the latest Gaelic games report in the NY Times was in 1963 says something that it's nowhere as major as any of "the major football tournaments".
 * (PS: It should've been "newest" instead of "oldest".) – H T  D  15:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WRT the London Times, you were "referring to a GAA-centric page within its sports section, like this Times section for F1. It implies there's an in-depth coverage about it." I linked to the Gaelic games section in the Times, which is unfortunately behind a paywall. The F1 section is behind the same paywall.
 * Finally, there are articles in the New York Times of Gaelic games interest in the New York area from this year. They don't end in 1924 or 1963 or any other year. -- RA (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the London times, as all sports sections are behind the paywall. With that said, Gaelic games doesn't seem to be important as it's not on its sports menu section. As for the NY Times, the only in depth coverage in the first page was the story about an owner of an Irish pub broadcasting the games; the rest were mere mentions of the phrase "Gaelic football." – H T  D  02:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Superbowl also got just a mention on a pages with sport results. So it is not important in Ireland and can be removed from In the news. The Banner talk 18:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Nonsense? No, the same type of argumentation as used by Howard the Duck... The world is bigger then the USA, but you should add significant sports, even when it is only significant in a few countries. Locals sports as Fierljeppen don't deserve a place (not a national sport), but the Elfstedentocht should desrve a spot (held 15 times in the 20th century)
 * The Super Bowl got a mention on a ton of news sources. This, not much. As for Elfstedentocht, it isn't recurring, anyway. – H T  D  18:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder what would happen when New York GAA would reach the final... Perhaps I misinterpret your words, but I have the idea that you are saying: "When a sport event is not in the USA, it is not interesting for the world." The Banner talk 23:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I nominated (at ITN/C) the 2007 AFC Asian Cup Final, but it was shot down. That was nowhere an American sport. Good thing people reconsidered in the 2012, but something tells me Australia making it to the final made them change their mind.
 * My ITNR nomination of EuroBasket also had a tough time, since English speaking teams (read: UK) perform poorly. I didn't see that argument in the handball nominations, where UK-based teams are just as crappy. At least that one passed. – H T  D  01:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Include dates?
The current version of this page doesn't list dates or approximate dates for most (all?) of these items. I think it'd be nice to include dates. The World Series generally takes place in [month]. The Nobel Peace Prize is usually awarded in [month]. Etc. Any thoughts on this? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a working page for editors, not encyclopaedic content for visitors, so it seems rather redundant, but if you would like to, I won't object. Kevin McE (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Can't hurt. I wouldn't bother being any more specific than the month though. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Add FIFA Ballon d'Or
As FIFA are the governing body of world association football, this is the most authoritative selection as to the best player in the world - the award used to be called "FIFA World Player of the Year" before it merged with a French award. All current soccer ITNR items relate to clubs or nations, this would be an addition to reflect individual achievement in the sport.

Occurs annually in early January. Attracts significant media attention and is global in scope and interest. --LukeSurlt c 12:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this hasn't gone through ITNC, so any discussion here is premature. It wasn't even nominated there this year.    Hot Stop     (Talk)   13:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't aware of this rule. See you in January I guess! --LukeSurlt c 15:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the only notability this year was Messi being given the award 4 times in a row. It's no different from the Hart Trophy, the Heisman Trophy, or the Maurice Podoloff Trophy. We don't need to be a ticker for professional athletes patting each other on the back. --IP98 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, for the same rationale it has been posted on ITN previously.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Add Death of World's Oldest Person (Ticker)
Item: The death of the world's oldest (verified) person, as listed on Oldest People. A Recent Deaths ticker item - posting a full blurb in an exceptional case would be a matter for ITN/C discussion.

ITN/C precedent: Dina Manfredini. During this discussion it was noted that posting this and not Besse Cooper who died a couple of weeks ago seems unbalanced. Adding this item to ITN/R would help achieve consistency.

Recurrence: Obviously impossible to predict, but looking at Oldest People it seems the average "reign" is about a year (53 different title holders since 1955).

Brief Rationale: The oldest person alive is of simple encyclopaedic relevance, and this obviously changes upon death. The use of the ticker seems a succinct and neat way to make mention of these encyclopaedic events. While the names are unlikely to be immediately recognisable to most readers, the articles will generally state the person's supercenturion status in the first sentence or two.

Note: While there are many longevity claims out there, this would need to be restricted to verified claims, i.e. those that make the listings at Oldest People.
 * --LukeSurlt c 11:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support this idea and the criteria. Good to have consistency in this area. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I lean oppose, actually. But then, I personally don't think a person is even notable simply for being old. Hell, the closest thing any of these people ever do to become notable is die. In the example case, Manfredini literally did nothing of note in her entire life. This does not warrant an automatic spot at ITN.  We may as well start posting other special interest stories to ITN while we are at it.  Ikea Monkey was cute.  We should post that. Resolute 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Being old is not an inherently notable achievement. Being older than anyone ever would be, but not just being older than anyone at a particular time. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Being lucky or skilled enough to survive over 110 years of war, disease, accidents, etc. isn't notable? I guess the media should stop mentioning it, then. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The media haven't given up on long-lens photographs of actresses, either. Shall we post some of those? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Paparazzi photographs are for better or worse a normal part of society and not unusual, while doing something the vast overwhelming majority of people won't do("being old") is very unusual. Apples and oranges. If the world's oldest person can't be in the deaths ticker then I don't know who could be. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference between this and the examples Alex is citing is the encyclopaedic relevance of the events. While collecting long-lens photos of celebrities is of no use to an encyclopaedia, cataloguing longevity records is something a decent encyclopaedia would expect to do. --LukeSurlt c 00:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The "average" reign is a year, but less than a third (16) have lasted that long...so the data's kind of worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.124.5 (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Such data would tend to an exponential distribution - meaning that the mean (~1 yr) would be greater than the median (~8 months). The mean however remains the best estimate of how often the story would recur over an indefinite period of time. --LukeSurlt c 17:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I would be inclined to oppose had the death ticker not existed, but this type of death is exactly what it was made for. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Is a typical reader likely to be especially interested? I don't think so. Formerip (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I do think so. Neither of us can judge what the "typical reader" of a global website is interested in; non-American football fans will be disinterested in the Super Bowl; non-UK citizens won't be interested in their Royal Family, etc.  I happen to think this subject is something that all people can relate to.  The question is the notability, not our opinions of what hypothetical "typical readers" want to read.  331dot (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you greatly over-estimate the interest of many UK residents in the Windsors. Kevin McE (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So was I hallucinating the people taking part in events over the Diamond Jubilee weekend? FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth II is also queen of 15 (16?) other countries and so there might be some interest there.
 * Also, parphrasing Kevin, I think you greatly under-estimate the interest of many US residents in the House of Windsor. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose this ought to be discussed each time.   Hot Stop     (Talk)   03:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? 331dot (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not?   Hot Stop     (Talk)   04:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The same reason for the existence of ITN/R. It saves us from needless discussion.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the personal details of the title holder are very rarely of any importance at all other than the fact that they are breathing. Kevin McE (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you end up being the oldest person I bet you will think it is important. If it's so unimportant then the media should stop mentioning it. It is always going to be brought up manually, yet its approval is inconsistent at best.  If we don't have something like that in the ticker, then it should just be removed, since there is little point if we are going to prohibit things like this from it. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, God, No! I suggested this as a joke. Let them all be nominated separately, and if seven die over a seven-day period, then God help us all. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly against this proposal, but neutral on whether such people should get a full blurb. These people are not celebrities, and do not really fall into a particular field. As such, very few people will have heard of them. If they are going to go on the Main Page, they should have full blurbs to explain who they are. —WFC— FL wishlist 07:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * God No! and that was my honest reaction before I saw Medias' comment above. This is trivia that is likely unsubstantiated in most cases anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

On Association Football Leagues
I was looking on the ITN/R items for Association Football, and noticed that there's one national league competition in there: the English Premier League.

This is probably fairly newsworthy, especially in English speaking territories, but most people who follow European football will probably say the dominant world club league is currently La Liga, not the EPL. Thought I might open a discussion here about what to do with this. We could post both, post neither, or replace the EPL with La Liga. Maybe because we're an English-language outfit we should stick with the status quo. Thoughts? --LukeSurlt c 23:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd favour adding La Liga, and not removing the EPL. I don't think 'we're in English' is any justification for being Anglocentric. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Replace Premier League with La Liga- It has a higher quality of play and gets more international coverage. There have been a lot of recent complaints about too much football, so just La Liga should be enough.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why my comment got that response. I am aware that Britons hold the EPL as eons ahead of other football leagues, but the fact is La Liga is as good if not better, and LOL isn't much of a counterargument to what I said.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it was down to your personal opinion-based approach that La Liga was somehow has "higher quality" and has "more international coverage", the first is purely subjective, the second is plain false. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep both. Also, why not Serie A and the Bundesliga as well?  Those leagues have historically been ranked with the EPL and La Liga in terms of league strength.  See UEFA coefficient which clearly indicates them as the historically top 4 leagues in terms of league strength.  I'm all for more inclusiveness on ITN.  We're far too elitist and restrictive there as it is.  -- Jayron  32  06:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tentative support - I really don't think we have too many football articles. I'm not fan myself, but I think it's really good and important that we cover culturally-significant activities as well as the usual news diet of war, politics and death. And as football is the world's most popular sport, and has demonstrated that it is an enduring cultural phenomenon with wider relevance, I think it's sensible that we should report on it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep EPL and add La Liga. EPL has to be the most followed league in any sport in the world, and La Liga has increased its prominence in English speaking media lately so there's no reason for ditching one to add the other. Undecided on Serie A and Bundesliga though, as a previous discussion here has produced a "consensus" that we're not considering "that much" the "highest level of the sport" argument, at least when compared to interest. Plus, I think (their respective season articles' infoboxes don't mention the start and end dates, which is like major fail) the EPL and La Liga end at somewhat different times of the year so we wouldn't be barraged with soccer blurbs. – H  T  D  09:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep EPL and add La Liga and Serie A. Frankly, removing the world's most watched league would be idiotic. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Premier League only A fairly widely held opinion is that in terms of the strength of the teams, the Spanish big two are some way ahead of any two given English clubs, but in turn if you look at all 20 teams in each country then the Premier League is some way ahead. That's questionable, but it's certainly true to say that the typical Premier League teams (the Stokes and West Hams) are streets ahead of typical La Liga teams (the Getafes and Real Valladolids) both in terms of the amount of media coverage they receive, and fans through the turnstiles. Don't get the bolded part of my post wrong, I'm very happy to post La Liga. I think we would be discriminating against football purely because of its popularity if we didn't post it. Nonetheless, when we start posting the Premier League, La Liga, and UEFA Champions League in relatively quick succession, there will be calls from non-football fans for us to post fewer competitions. While I would disagree with those calls, they would be understandable and would garner significant support. Given that the Premier League will be posted whether it's ITNR or not (much like the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup or World Series), it belongs on ITNR in the interests of saving time. Rightly or wrongly, La Liga does not fall into that same category, and therefore that is the one which should apply for year-by-year consensus. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, if we were to give baseball the same treatment being proposed here for football, we would post the American League champions, the National League Champions, the world series, and possibly the MLB MVP. Of course, my friends across the pond would crap their pants at that amount of "US centric sports news", which is precisely how I feel about all this Euro-football. --IP98 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you ever have a discussion at or about ITN without dragging your contempt for non-American things into it? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, off the top of my head, I guess and . I took a bit of a break after the Messi travesty. Upon what are you basing your accusations? --IP98 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose La Liga, Neutral Premier - Plenty of football already. --IP98 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Premiership. Not keen on La Liga—I'm not opposed, but it's too much of a two-horse race for me to find it worth reporting on; it's basically a "better" SPL. Top-to-bottom, England's Premiership is widely reported upon and hosts a very international lineup which make it a good choice to go with. GRAPPLE   X  20:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to put La Liga and the EPL into a single blurb when appropriate. I think it should stop there in terms of domestic football leagues.  So my !vote is to add La Liga while keeping the EPL but with my suggestion above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem with that is that, if a team is very sucessful, they can be in an unnassailable position (generally considered having won) with weeks to go. As such it's difficult to predict when these two stories will occur. --LukeSurlt c 15:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems removing the Premiership wouldn't be that popular. I'll try and remember to nominate La Liga at ITN/C this year and if it passes we could have a ITN/R decision. Personally I'd be sympathetic if someone nominated Seria A and the Bundesliga as well. --LukeSurlt c 10:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep EPL and add La Liga. The major national leagues with worldwide press coverage. NickSt (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep EPL and add La Liga for sure. They are the two most important. I am also open to the possibility of adding Serie A and Bundesliga. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also add La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga and FIFA Club World Cup As a non-football person myself, how many countries play and watch football compared to say basketball and cricket? The world should not have to revolve around the UK since the former two are in the same scale as the other two and the latter because it is one tier up from the Copa Libertadores and the UEFA Champions League. Anybody who want to disagree on its importance, the two links tell you that the South American teams take this event seriously. . Donnie Park (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove Dakar Rally from ITN/R
As suggested at the current ITN/C nomination, should Dakar Rally be removed from the Recurring Item list?

I am neutral on the matter.. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak support for removal. This event doesn't seem to have a wide appeal anywhere from what I can see right now; there certainly is not much coverage of the current holding of it. I could potentially change my mind if supporters of keeping it explained why it should be here. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Too many items listed here fall under the same category. Items are added to the list even under a less than overwhelming consensus here, among a tiny number of editors; that then becomes the basis for ignoring a consensus of a much larger group at the candidates page. The only items for which consensus can be assumed are those for which we could equally easily assume snow support after a few votes. ITN/R, like the minority topics list, was a worthy suggestion, but should probably now be abandoned. At any rate, any ITN/R item that meets non-negligible opposition at ITN/C should be removed from ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support unless the current discussion at ITN/C takes a very different turn. Per my previous comments on the Venice festival and All Ireland Football: response at ITN/C shows that support is not so overwhelming that it can be assumed. ITN/R should not be a tail that wags the ITN/C dog: it should serve ITN/C by making recurrent obvious landslide supports unnecessary, it should not undermine ITN/C by stating that consensus is irrelevant as it has already been determined.


 * Strong keep it's a top tier tournament in a major motorsport classification. It's 1 story per year, if the article is updated. It hurts precisely nothing. --IP98 (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's so top tier, why is it so difficult to find coverage of it? 331dot (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM is also not an argument. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * was easy enough for me to find. Look at the stuff on this list: netball, table tennis, snooker, none of that is making "the front page of bbc.com" either, but so what? If all that mattered was popularity we would post 50 soccer stories a year, 35 cricket stories, and nothing else because "it's not widely covered". --IP98 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I could understand that worldwide popularity might not be a consideration, but I'm not seeing where this is hugely popular on a regional or national basis. Popularity and widespread coverage should be important for ITNR.  Less popular events should be discussed on a per-event basis. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a top level event in one classification has never been grounds for ITN/R listing. If it were, the women's powerlifting -63kg title could be celebrated every year at ITN.  Kevin McE (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't we having this same discussion in the nom? The ITN/R item isn't "mens age 35-43 close top 4wd raid rally", is simply "rally racing", all rally races. This is a big event, with a number of disciplines (bike, quad (open wheel), car, truck). I would not be so vehemently opposed to some sort of "world powerlifting championship" getting on ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant point here is that being top level event in a sport is not grounds for listing on ITN/R. Saying that it should be included because it is top level of one classification of one particular type of event within a sport falls well short of the grounds for ITN/R inclusion.  I illustrated the point with an extreme, but comparable, counter-example. Kevin McE (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't those called straw man attacks? Ultimately I don't care, but if the Dakar Rally goes, we'll need to initiate an overhaul of all sporting events on ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Your grounds for including the Dakar Rally, and you are confident enough in the grounds to make it a strong keep !vote, is "it's a top tier tournament in a major motorsport classification."  Assuming that you don't believe that motor sport should be treated differently to other sports, you would be logically obligated to support ITN/R listing of "top tier tournament" results in major classifications of other sports.  Is that your position?  If not, is the reason that you believe that motor sport should be treated differently, or that your argument is not based on "it's a top tier tournament"?
 * I have repeatedly called for a radically reassessment of ITN/R, and not only for sports, but I see nothing particular about this event that would trigger it. How exactly is exclusion of the Dakar rally inconsistent with the principles of ITN/R? Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the principles, but the list. If the Dakar Rally goes, so should gaelic football, snooker, etc. --IP98 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is the removal of these dependent on the result of this proposal? Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I ask the same question. IP98 - look at the top of the page, and elsewhere, when individual items have gone through the removal process and they've been retained. You can't say "one goes, they all go", because that's not how Wikipedia works, as you well know, but furthermore you can't say "one goes, all goes" when discussions have been so fairly in favour of retention after an open and fair discussion. It's my view that ITN/R needs reform, major reform, and that might mean throwing the whole thing open to a project-wide debate. For now, we do things piecemeal and that doesn't mean you can suggest massive deletions based on a personal prejudice doktorb wordsdeeds 23:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right all I totally don't get it. The Dakar Rally is weak and lame. No one watches it, no one cares, so off of ITN/R with it! But only it! Because there can be no comparison with similarly uninteresting items. Banish it at once, and make room for the national football championship of Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Portugal and even Australia! (I think I understand now, thanks to all for your help). --IP98 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That really isn't being helpful. I'm genuinely trying to help here, as you can see from other nominations I've made. If you're stuck for anything to contribute other than sarcasm or insults, then I can only assume you have nothing to contribute. Look, I know it's Wikipedia, and that more generally we're arguing on the Internet which is it's own special creation, but to come back with that kind of response to a genuine and constructive post from Kevin and me just seems low, cheap and childish. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support It may be top tier only in January (because it is the motorsport off season as everybody is developing cars for the forthcoming season) but is it on TV a lot, no (and understandably as highlights); is it backpage news (in comparison to F1, MotoGP, and WSB), no; do you hear the average Joe Public talk about it comparison to say F1/MotoGP/WRC, no. The only kind of people who talk about it are enthusiasts, why, I when I used to watch it on Eurosport, the only people I can talk to about it are people who have real interests in it and held subscription to cable TV channel. Donnie Park (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With 7 billion people in the world, hundreds of TV distributors, millions of websites and news papers, could you please provide more concrete evidence than your happenstance interactions with "average Joe Public" or what you may have seen on TV? --IP98 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That user can't provide evidence of something not being popular, since a negative cannot be proven; they can only give their opinion based on their personal experience. The question is, can you demonstrate that this niche event is popular(even if only regionally or nationally) and widely covered? I believe we don't have the wife carrying championships in ITN/R, for example, because it is a niche event that is not widely popular.  331dot (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looked at front of the New York Times sports section, nothing in its front page: Lance Armstrong-Oprah interview; NHL, NFL playoffs, Australian Open. There is that even but only written in 5 lines. Looked at Sunday Times: nothing in its front page, just the Premier League, Australian Open, Heineken Cup. ESPN headlines: NFL playoffs, Australian Open, NBA. There is that rally but it is next to soccer, above them is college football. Daily Mail, theres one because of the magic word "Kate and Willy of Cambridge", obviously because of them pair, newsworthy material, not helped that it is at the bottom of the page as "Other News" - go to show how unless it is the motoring press, how news editors treat the event. Going back to headlines, the usual UK lot, Armstrong, Australian Open, football, football and football and of course F1 because McLaren made a minor cock up. This tells you how much news editors think the general public give a damn about the rally. I challenge you to go ask the general public and hold a conversation with them about this year's rally yourself, trust me, I tried to hold conversations with them before and do they give a damn? Donnie Park (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's on NBC sports right now, comcast channel 37 in south florida. I'm an average Joe, and I'm watchin it on TV! (well I was, my wife immediately objected). --IP98 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about American TV network, so you mean midnight, the graveyard shift hour, when a smaller percentage of people watch TV. According to my TV channel app, IIRC, it was shown on TVB Pearl at 1am when people are in bed, goes to prove though they know the name, the public's attitude to the event. Donnie Park (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't know whether anyone else has noticed, but recently the benchmark for posting to ITN has been creeping upward, and its not healthy. Our top story at the moment is four days old (bear in mind that our target is to post something every 12 hours), and that's getting pretty normal. It hardly seems worth nominating anything at the moment, because if it's not something that someone else will inevitably nominate if you don't, then it stands no chance of getting consensus. In that context, an perfectly postable ITNR story may be the only realistic chance of getting something posted until...who knows when? so I don't see what the benefit of removing it would be. Formerip (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So because January 2013 is a slow news month (or more to the point, items have not been convincingly presented at ITN/C), we are to oblige ourselves to posting this event evey year for the foreseeable future? Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not as if that's the only reason, but yes, provided it is updated. Formerip (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep while somewhat a tangential argument, it's staggering to me that we're happy for an obscure poetry award (Struga Poetry Evenings) to remain at ITN/R while the legendary Dakar Rally winner (for a few days every year at ITN) is considered no longer notable. Again, no definitive indication of notability but Dakar rally gets over 30 million Google hits, the Struga poetry evenings gets fewer than 100k.  I'm not sure I understand if there's even a rationale for removal of the rally from ITN beyond not liking it.  It's a multinational event which draws competitors from around the globe to an endurance event which is pretty challenging and, many years, death-defying.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to retain. Inclusion at ITN/R is the declaration that an event is so important that we can assume that importance need not be discussed year by year, but that so long as the article is sufficiently updated, then it is to be posted.  Given that support for the importance of the 2013 rally is clearly lacking at ITN/C, why on earth would we assume in advance that the 2014/15/16 etc rallies will be so self evidently important that it need not even be discussed. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I warned that the argument was borderline tangential, but it goes to prove a principle. Just because one or two of us may not think a certain subject is notable worldwide, it doesn't mean that it isn't. Of course, your assertion that an ITN/R "need not even be discussed" is false, we have to ensure the updates are made correctly and that the article is of sufficient quality, regardless of whether it's a recurring ITNer or not.  Providing a quality update is made, there's no good reason not to feature this historical race every year.  Just because this year's discussion may not support it, who can say who would be delighted to see it in years to come.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment about not needing to be discussed was in the context of importance "so self evidently important that it [the importance] need not even be discussed". I repeat (and slightly rephrase and re-emphasise) the question that you evaded: Given that support for the importance of the 2013 rally is clearly lacking at ITN/C, why on earth would we assume in advance that the 2014/15/16 etc rallies will be so self evidently important that the importance need not even be discussed? Of course it could be proposed in future years, but if consensus over importance is not clear in 2013 (or any other year), then consensus over importance in any other year cannot be treated as a foregone conclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, will consider that every time an ITN/R gets a whiff of opposition, we'll delist it from ITN/R. In that case, what is the point of ITN/R? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, to list items which are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. But if serious doubt is cast on that assumption, inclusion at ITN/R is invalid.  The only items that should be here are those for which very little, or no, serious opposition on importance grounds could be envisaged, and if such weak opposition is envisaged, the items can just as easily be allowed to go through on a snow vote. Kevin McE (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- Not to get into OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but compared to some other events on ITN/R, which I am using not as comparison but as a notability threshold, this deserves to be on that list.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that current discussion at ITN/C demonstrates that this reaches a "notability threshold"? Do you believe that the prominence being given to coverage of the event in the mainstream media reflects that this has reached a "notability threshold"? Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I say if we are fored to keep this, give ITN/R a major overhaul as many world headline articles have been overlooked in favour of some that is not seriously newsworthy material and some of those listed on ITN/R are making a mockery of ITN. Donnie Park (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My feeling comes down to this--I have no problem with the Dakar rally being featured on ITN if there is quality content with it. Not sure what !vote that should be though.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A little further thought. While I stand by my comment that this event is mainly of interest to a small number of enthusiasts, which is a subjective statement difficult to prove but several editors agree, I do believe that like the Iditarod it is a well-known race even if people don't follow it closely.  It's very well established.  It's features parts of the world which don't normally get on ITN.  So I don't know, I think I"m neutral for now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment- To anybody who think the Dakar Rally deserve to be in ITN/R because it is legendary and top tier, then what about these major and some, longer established races: Daytona 500, the other two endurance racing triple crowns (Sebring and Daytona), the Bathurst 1000, the endurance motorcycling majors (Le Mans, Bol d'Or and Suzuka 8 Hours), are we going to say these should be listed in ITN/R as well. You can keep this in ITN/R but if another nomination appears again each year, I'll vehemently oppose each nomination with the same comment as i had done in the last two editions. Donnie Park (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While your impending "vehement oppose" is all very interesting and somewhat sinister, and in all practical terms pointless, why not just deal with the article in question. Or better still, make a case for those articles you've noted.   ITN is heading towards self-destruct. It would be better for Wikipedia if we could agree that a few items of a similar subject could stay at ITN/R.  Let's not forget, ITN has become stale as month-old bread lately, the voting process has become divisive and unconstructive, if we could find some basic "elements" of ITN once again, including mass-interest items like this or the Daytona 500, or any other such article, let's get on with it, nominate it for ITN/R and move on.  P.S. I didn't mention it, but others should, you do know that other stuff exists don't you?   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I point out that the nomination for last year's Daytona 500 was opposed and thus never made it to ITN and from what I think, Americans treat that and the Indy 500 like Australians treat the Bathurst 1000 and the French to Le Mans, only two of those are in ITN/R, hence my point. Donnie Park (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course you can point that out. That's your prerogative.  Having said that, just because items you like didn't make it to ITN, that's no reason to object to other similar items.  Why not try something crazy, like nominating one of this here, although I don't fancy your chances given the attitudes of a lot of the people at ITN/C, let alone here.  Now Kevin McE has posited that an ITN/R which has been opposed should be dropped from ITN/R.  In which case, there seems no point whatsoever in ITN/R if each and every year, an ITN/R item has to be fought for to be included on the main page.  My suggestion right now?  Delete ITN/R.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * seconded. Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * thirded .... oops, can't vote for myself.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * fourthed (if it is going to turn discussions into another episode of The Jeremy Kyle Show ;)) Donnie Park (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Getting rid of ITN/R sounds a lot like an idea I suggested some time ago to put each and every ITN/R member up for a "confirmation hearing", just the other way round. I don't believe it would be constructive to vote the whole thing out in one go. It would be helpful to be far more tough on those entries which form it - for example, I note that my nomination at the top of this article earlier today has been archived without an admin's decision on it. We can't allow this to happen every time. We need to make these decisions quickly and decisively. There's very good reasons to have ITN/R, but it's broken, and I suspect it'll collapse around us if we don't do something doktorb wordsdeeds 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think being tougher isn't a bad idea, but getting rid of ITNR outright would be like cutting our hand off to get rid of a hangnail. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you (or anyone) be kind enough to explain the advantage of ITN/R when each and every entry has to go through exactly the same scrutiny before being posted?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My impression (not just from this discussion) is that there is significant support for wiping the slate clean at ITN/R – not getting rid of it – but blanking the page, and re-adding things one-by-one, discussing them where there is doubt. Unless there is some sort of indication that I have misjudged the mood, I just might go ahead and do it at the weekend. —WFC— FL wishlist 20:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While I would be reasonably happy to see that happen, and would have strong opinions about what criteria should be applied in a re-population exercise (though happier still simply to see it discontinued), I suspect that it would not be considered acceptable unless the proposal were much better publicised than a note deep into a discussion with no notification elsewhere, and no header drawing attention to it. (I, User:Kevin McE, posted this at 20:54, January 22, 2013‎ )


 * Weak oppose as per my comment on the ITN/C nomination, but the critical part for these type of items is the article prose update.  Spencer T♦ C 23:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Popular sport in many countries. NickSt (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Popular in name/brand (like BTCC to non-Europeans), popular to people with cable TV access or can manage to stay up for late night TV and popular because there are a tiny other motorsport activities in January and yeah, because nobody is going to post other motorsport events in ITN in January. I suggest you to go to the person on the street and ask them who won and can they be bothered to come up with the answer in the same way some can say to the FIFA World Cup/Superbowl/F1 World Championship/MotoGP/UEFA Champions League, which is what my oppose nomination is based on. Donnie Park (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm getting off the fence and voting to support keeping this--bearing it mind that as always it should only be posted if there is a quality update.  It's a fairly established event and a unique event at that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)