Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 9

Admin request
Could a non-involved admin be made aware of the older requests on this page, as all have gone through enough discussion for a decision to me made? doktorb wordsdeeds 23:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove All Ireland Senior Football Championship
Continued from Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_8, archived without an admin's decision doktorb wordsdeeds 12:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a discussion that led to its addition to the list? Has it been archived? I wanna see how that went... – H T  D  13:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Highly unlikely that there was a discussion, seems that many things were inserted there without much say so doktorb wordsdeeds 13:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a search function above in the talk archive box, you know. It was proposed in talk in November 2008, no further comment was made, it was added to the list several months later by the proposer.  But that was about typical: more discussion than the Dakar Rally (see above) had.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So I was right, there was not much say so? doktorb wordsdeeds 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support removal Too much of a minority sport that is little know outside the country. To sum it all up, as minority as Quidditch. Donnie Park (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove Based on what I can see, this sport has little or no effect outside of Ireland. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to remove items from the list
^^ – H T  D  03:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If we look at the current snapshot of consensus above, I think that there is indeed a consensus, at least a rough one, to keep both the Dakar Rally and the Men's World Handball championship. (!vote counts, FWIW, are 12-5 to keep Handball and 7-3 to keep the Rally). So in those cases I don't think there's any evidence of a problem--those events are staying on because there's a consensus to keep them, not because they were added to ITNR years ago by a couple of editors and they're hanging on because no one can muster a consensus to remove them.  The Gaelic Football championship is a little more problematic, as there doesn't seem to be much comment on whether to keep or remove it, which supports the idea that it's very hard to remove events.  That said, I think there was a proposal last year or so on the removal of the GAA championship event and there was a consensus to keep it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the GAA event had no consensus for removal, which defaults to keep. – H T  D  04:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I really believe that consensus here means something very different from its meaning elsewhere. The self proclaimed purpose of ITN/R is to list items which are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur.  In other words, not merely that it is important, but that it is so important that that is considered beyond debate each time it recurs.  If the experience at ITN/C is that it is actively and meaningfully debated, and sometimes rejected despite the alleged guaranteed pass of ITN/R, then that assumption is demonstrably ill-founded.
 * We should not here be !voting about whether something is important, but about whether we believe that the importance is perceived by the community as so self evident that it is not worth putting up for discussion.
 * I do not see that as the basis of many of the !votes that you have counted. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kevin, with respect (and I really do have a lot of respect for your thoughtful contributions), I have problems with what you say. It seems to me to be inconsistent with the actual practice of ITN/R up till now. As far as I can see, discussions on ITN/R have been about whether an event is sufficiently important and newsworthy to always be posted, whatever might happen in the event in a particular year; they haven't been about whether the community perceives it to be self-evident that it is sufficiently important. If we did follow your practice we would have much shorter list: I would say that quite probably the majority of the sporting competitions on the list would be too controversial to qualify under your criterion. Saying ITN/R lists items that "are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur" doesn't seem to me to say anything about self-evidence; it just says that the event is important enough to be listed each time, regardless of what happens that particular year (as opposed to events which would only be listed if something particularly newsworthy happened). I any case, surely the best way to assess the level of consensus is have editors say whether they support or oppose its inclusion, rather than having say whether they think the community regards its importance as self-evident - something that is much harder for them to assess. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If we accept items for ITN/R on the basis of a marginal !vote (at best, most are here simply on the basis of suggestion at time of founding of the list) on the basis of whether it is important, then there cannot be confidence that a similar discussion in another year, with wider participation, will give the same result. This is seen frequently.  Putting something on ITN/R should not be based on "I think this is important", it should be based on "I believe that the community will agree on the importance of this".  People have not !voted on that basis, thus the decision of ITN/R is unreliable, thus the principle that importance can be taken as predetermined is ill founded.  Consensus against posting on grounds of insufficient importance at ITN/C is being overruled by inferior debate at ITN/R, or the assumption of importance implied by ITN/R listing is disproven at ITN/C: either is a ridiculous state of affairs.  Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Could we add some sort of "on probation" list? Such that if more than a handful of editors query an item's place (critical amount to be judged by an wise admin considering the size of the ITN/C community), at the next time it occurs it gets a standard ITN/C run and we see how that goes? If there is consensus to reject, then bye-bye ITN/R status. If there's consensus to post then its full ITN/R listing is restored and protected from further probation for at least one recurrence. I think this is a way to maintain ITN/R's time-saving role whilst addressing Howard's and others' concerns. --LukeSurlt c 23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I proposed something like this before, but this can be abused... like what will most likely happen this Sunday/Monday. – H T  D  04:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Add Turner Prize
As the BBC note, "one of the art world's most prestigious prizes" and in comparison with some of the other ITN/R entries under art (such as the Struga Poetry Evenings), Turner gets orders of magnitude more interest. Incidentally, not suggesting this should apply this year, of course, just that it should apply hereafter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Think this should be added. We don't have any prizes for visual art in the list, and if you google "world's most prestigious art prize", it seems like the Turner Prize is actually main contender, even if it is not international. Formerip (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Only if support is absolutely overwhelming in the present ITN/C discussion. There is already some dispute, and we should get an international perspective. UK media are all over it for two days a year, but that is not an indicator of global relevance. Kevin McE (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support if someone can prove that "British artists under 50" are the best artists in the world just as the players playing in the Australian Football League are the best players of Aussie rules football in the world. – H T  D  03:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It'll be interesting to note that the likes of Da Vinci won't win the "most prestigious arts award" if this was given when he was alive. – H T  D  12:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? Da Vinci lived in an era of patronage, and certainly received awards from the top patrons. But there's no way to know how a Renaissance artist would fare in the modern arts world - it's pure speculation. One can't meaningfully 'note' a 'fact' you just made up. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I should've been clearer: Da Vinci would've not qualified in the first place, as he is not British (or English at the time), or was known to have made a British (English) sojourn unless I missed something. – H T  D  12:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * True. But without wishing to praise my own nation too much, it might be fair to suggest that in Da Vinci's day, an equivalent benefaction would undoubtedly have been targeted at young Italian artists. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that ought to answer my question if "British artists under 50" are the best artists in the world just as AFL players are the best Aussie rules players in the world. – H T  D  13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, they are not ipso facto the best, at all! But it seems to be the prevailing opinion in the business (which I used to have some professional contact with) that a significant proportion of those who are the best are either British or working in Britain. I have no idea where the age bar comes from. I feel that these self-fulfilling prophecies are damaging for the diversity of the field, and lead to ridiculous ideas like Martin Creed's Olympics art project which was deemed impracticable by the people who'd actually have to do the work. But despite these obvious flaws, this is where the ostensibly wise heads of the art business think it's at. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, let me clear: No one can prove anyone is at the best at anything anyway. The thing is if there's this impression than British artists under 50 are perceived by many to be the best. If that somehow can be proven, then this should be added, provided it passes ITN/C.
 * I've tried snooping around for some empirical proofs, such as most expensive paintings sold since 1984, but those are hard to come by. This is similar to AFL players being the most highly paid Aussie rules players; and being a highly paid AFL player must be first-name basis in Aussieland. Dunno if a highly paid visual artist is the same thing in the UK – H T  D  13:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For many of the more conceptual artists, sale prices may not even exist. Creed, for example, won the Turner in 2001 for an empty room whose lights go on and off. This work isn't capable of being sold, even in principle. The prize and its nominations are regarded by some in the business as an indicator of significance, even of quality, in their own right. I'd love to disagree, but in the absence of a more objective criterion, I don't know what to suggest. As for "first name basis", only reality TV stars tend to get that treatment over here. But I'd suggest that Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst are household names beyond the chatterati.AlexTiefling (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, people such as One Direction and Wayne Rooney must be names that are well known by every British household, wouldn't it? Otherwise, if reality TV stars (which should be the very opposite of art) are the well-known people in the UK, then that goes against the essence of the award, which should be well known by the British public a la the FA Cup or even the BRIT Awards for it to be in ITNR. – H T  D  13:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're confusing too things I think. Level of celebrity of participants has nothing to do with ITNR criteria, at least not to the extent you suggest. How many people will know the name of the current BWF champion, or even what one is? Or who won last year's Eurovision? The point is, that when someone wins the Turner prize it makes them the most talked-about person in the world in their field. That's what makes it suitable for ITNR. Formerip (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What you say might be true. However, if dunno what the BWF is, but Eurovision is a well known event even outside its niche -- if you consider singing contests where contestants represent nations as a niche -- for it to be in ITNR. The question is if the Turner Award is well known outside its niche to be accorded ITNR status. One way is to look at page view stats during the "off-season." As the page view stats are really hard to access these days, I don't really know how things such as Eurovision, the BRITs and the FA Cup stand. As for haterz of the page view stats, they can be safely used here as the example pertain to one country so we don't have to account population differences. – H T  D  14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Page view stats tell you something about how popular it is, not how significant it is, but it's easy to run comparisons.  . So it's a little less popular than Eurovision, and much more popular than the BWF Chamionships. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I was trying to explain that 'first name basis', understood literally, is not a good guide to who is actually well-known or notable; it has as much to do with how people are discussed in the popular press as how they would otherwise be discussed in the pub. I'd say that, at least in the black-top press (broadsheet and tabloid combined), and the mainstream broadcast news, the Turner Prize gets a highly significant level of coverage. Yes, comparable to the BRIT Awards (outside the fact that the awards ceremony itself is broadcast, because of its performance content, whereas the Turner's generally isn't). Not the FA Cup so much - that's a whole other, er, ball game.AlexTiefling (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose the award's criteria "British under 50" is too narrow.  Hot Stop     (Talk)   04:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Best artist from a certain country isn't saying much. Otherwise, we would have to post for all moderately large countries with similar awards.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 05:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Sadly, this probably is the premier art prize in the world, despite its absurdly narrow scope and known cultural biases. I don't have to like it to think that it's significant. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have withdrawn the nomination on ITN/C. I believe it should be on the front page, and has the credibility, breadth and depth to be expected by a wider audience to be there. However clearly a debate is ongoing about its worth, and I'd rather not see the nomination clubbed to death in the meantime doktorb wordsdeeds 14:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't blame you. The nomination here, perhaps should have been to remove the Struga Poetry Evenings instead as it's clearly nonsense we keep that and oppose this prize.  But naturally, I would say that....  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The prize is important from the British perspective, but not from a global one. As Hot Stop said, the criterion is too narrow. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove Handball
In connection to the current ITN/C nomination of World Men's Handball Championships for the front page, I'm suggesting today that the event is removed. It's clear from even the most cursory Internet search that this event is so minor that its leg-up to the front page via ITN/R seems unfathomable and unfair. There is no overwhelming reason why this event is awarded special interest through ITN/R, essentially a free pass to the front page.

I propose World Men's Handball Championships is removed from ITN/R. This would result in subsequent nominations having to go through standard discussion. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Removal - see my comments under the current ITN/C nomination. I'd of course be in favour of keeping it on ITN/R because, barring anything exceptional happening in 2013, 2014 etc. my opinion on notability will be exactly the same (i.e. the purpose of ITN/R, to save repetitious discussion of recurring events). --LukeSurlt c 18:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear and strikingly obvious remove - not covered by any major English news outlets at all. No need to push the "diversity" button when no-one who reads this particular Wikipedia has any real interest in this.  Leave it to the Polish or Spanish or Serbian or Croatian Wikipedias to cover this on their In The News section.  Alternatively, as suggested above, remove ITN/R entirely and judge every article on its own merit, in which case this would fail hands down.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We cannot say that a sport is out of scope or not important worldwide if it's simply not attractive in countries with a major concentration of English-speaking population. Handball is an Olympic sport with a long history and the IHF as its administrative body counts 163 members, which is much more than in many other sports. In addition, the comments referring to it as something with no penetration through the media are false.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Prove it then. Prove the "penetration" to the major English-speaking news outlets.  This is English Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find several examples of English-speaking news articles attached to the current ITN/C nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal I am not seeing that this tournament is covered in any real depth in English language news sources, however would not want it's removal to be a bar on future stand alone nomination. LightGreenApple  talk to me  22:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The 2009 final had an average TV audience of 17 million and a total audience of 32 million. To put that in context in terms of other 2009 events, it ranks higher than Game 7 of the Stanley Cup, the final of the ICC Twenty20 and the final of the Indian Premier League - all of which are, rightly, ITN/R events: http://www.initiative.com/sites/default/files/ViewerTrack_2010.pdf Neljack (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. The much maligned college football BCS championship had 26.8 million viewers, putting it in between #6 and #7, and we're giving free passes to a tournament ranked nos, 12, 14 and 18. – H T  D  12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with viewership, the issue is coverage in English-speaking news sources and the source you give shows that the top three markets are not English speaking. LightGreenApple  talk to me  23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see why non-English news sources should be disregarded. Neljack (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In case it had escaped your notice this is "In the News" on the English language Wikipedia so while inclusion in the pedia of an article rightly does not need English language sources, the inclusion in a section detailing what is in the news needs evidence that the subject is in English news sources. LightGreenApple  talk to me  23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As per Talk:Main_Page and countless other discussions on WT:ITN, ITN is a bit misnamed, as the purpose of ITN is to "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." (WP:ITN). Nowhere does it says that articles must be covered by English news media, nor that "wide interest" is limited to Anglophones.  Spencer T♦ C 23:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. We are building an international encyclopedia, and there's no reason we should limit articles that have less English coverage. In fact, that's a clear example of systemic bias. If there weren't any news sources covering this in any language, I would support removal, but the existence of large media organizations (not just niche ones) covering this supports my opinion for inclusion.  Spencer T♦ C 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove (strongy-ongy-ding-dang-dongy remove) The sport is of low notability, and simply doesn't deserve a free pass.  It can always be nominated by the normal route.  If it is and is notable it'll be posted. 23:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)~
 * The above comment was added by User:Medeis.  Spencer T♦ C 23:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a large sport in many countries and only has this one entry every two years. From Team handball: "By July 2009, the IHF listed 166 member federations - approximately 795,000 teams and 19 million players." PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove, not because it is unimportant, but because it is obvious that consensus cannot be taken for granted. ITN/R inclusion is predicated upon the assumption that consensus for importance is so obvious that it need not be discussed; this is clearly not the case. Kevin McE (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're right, it means that ITN/R should list only a dozen of items or even less. We don't have any specific criteria on the number of items that should be listed and it doesn't strike the process to nominate new one for inclusion or another one for removal. However, the method to discuss each item as a separate case with no reference to the ITN/R is regularly useful.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you doubt that I am right, please describe what you think is the essence of ITN/R listing. If you concede that I am right, you will probably agree with me that the few items that genuinely deserve listing would sail through on a snow nomination, and that ITN/R is redundant. Kevin McE (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove Not a very popular sport anywhere on Earth. What I could piece together, it seems that the sport enjoys the greatest relative popularity in Denmark, and even there it is only the fourth most popular sport (by sport club membership). I do not agree with the Anglophone argument, however. Undoubtedly, the English Wikipedia has a very international readership. It's just that handball is really not that popular anywhere. This is why we don't include chessboxing, even if it has officially sanctioned world championships (as quite an extreme example.) --hydrox (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The rationale of ITNR is that there is already a strong consensus for these items. With a nomination to remove, unless there actually is such a consensus, the default position has to be to remove them.  At this point there is no consensus to keep. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasoning given by others above. 331dot (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Would have had issue with this if not for the viewership as mentioned above. Keep. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  04:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep We need a wider variety of items on ITN and more updates. -- Jayron  32  04:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with assuming that this event will be assumed to meet the importance criterion every year for the foreseeable future? Kevin McE (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have an objective measure for your illusory "importance" criteria? -- Jayron  32  06:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus. If you cannot discuss without rude sarcasm, please don't discuss. Kevin McE (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being sarcastic. I was asking you a direct question that I wanted to hear your answer to.  I find the concept of "importance" to be a highly personal one, and it isn't self-evident that one person's sense of what is important enough has any universal definition.  I wanted to know what your standard was, so I asked you.  If your standard is consensus, then it's far to early in this current discussion to declare it one way or the other.  As far as a direct response to your question, since your standard is consensus, my contribution to that consensus is to state that this is important enough.  Your question is thus circular, as if the only judgement of importance is consensus, then my vote is sufficient.  If you have some other standard besides mere consensus, that's fine, but if not then I don't see why my vote needs to be questioned.  If so, I'd like to know what it is so I can assess if this topic meets it.  -- Jayron  32  07:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you describe the terms of my argument as illusory, and place it in inverted commas, you should not be surprised that your response is considered rude.
 * At ITN/C, importance can be judged by consensus. Here, we are making a judgement not merely on whether we individually consider an item to be important enough to post, but whether we believe that consensus as to importance is secure enough to be able to be taken for granted.  The very divided response to the proposal that can currently be seen at ITN/C makes me confident that such a belief is ill-founded. That does not mean that it could or should not be proposed any time it is held, and it might indeed add to the variety of items at ITN on any given day. Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Bandwagonning the above reasoning. GRAPPLE   X  04:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep- As the only entry for a very popular sport, I think we can handle posting this once every two years.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Define "popular" doktorb wordsdeeds 08:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from what others mention above, it's popular enough to be in the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So is modern pentathlon and there is a proposal to remove it from the 2020 Olympics. Donnie Park (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's basically because it used to be popular enough for the Olympics, but now it's not.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about modern pentathlon, and its falling popularity is precisely why they are considering removing it. The same is not currently true for handball. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Popular sport in many countries. WCh is the only ITNR item for it. NickSt (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments to remove this have no encyclopedic basis. People think handball is on this list because of 'diversity', really?  Handball, as minor a sport as it actually is, makes it into the news and with some regularity (hence being on the ITN/R list).  Nothing about this is wrong or unencyclopedic, so there's nothing to change.  Further, I'd like to challenge the original intention of this nomination, which was to remove this item from the ITN section of the front page.  What's the purpose of our internet encyclopedia if not to inform readers of events which are less popular, and are thus something that readers might not yet know?  Thanks, 128.214.198.120 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ^^^This^^^ -- Jayron  32  13:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a bi-annual event, so that means one handball entry every two years, which seems just right for Handball.  It's fairly popular, not very popular.  In many continental European countries, it ranks as the second, third or fourth most popular team sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep when it has 0.5 items per year and golf has over 4. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal As the same above. Regardless if it is a Olympic sport, never seen any news coverage of it. More like a minority sport that, god knows how many people care about and so what if it is a bi-annual event, it doesn't make it that important. Also, where is the source to prove that it is the "ranks as the second, third or fourth most popular team sport, in many continental European countries?" Donnie Park (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Handball is the most popular sport for women in Europe, and the second most popular for men": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2085128/London-2012-Olympics-British-Handball-campaign-Olympic-venues-Copper-Box-change.html. "Europe's second most popular team sport, handball...": http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/06/handball-olympics-2012-get-involved. Also, the fact you've never seen coverage of it doesn't mean there's a lack of coverage, just that there isn't where you live because it isn't very popular there. Similarly, there isn't much coverage of American football, baseball, Aussie Rules or Gaelic football where I live. Neljack (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For a second-most popular men's sport in Europe (surpassing the likes of rugby, basketball, ice hockey and volleyball), you'd have to ask why handball played at the smallest arena (Basketball Arena (London): 12,000 capacity) in the Olympics at a European city vs. basketball (The O2 Arena: 20,000 capacity) and volleyball (Earls Court Exhibition Centre: 19,000 capacity). In fact, it seems that the basketball's group stages had as much interest as handball's medal rounds since they were played at the same arena. I'm not opposing, and in fact supporting this nomination as it seems that the page views are large enough (I think it's even bigger than Northern hemispheric rugby but smaller than basketball's world championship that was heavily opposed 3 years ago), but we have to be more picky with claims such as "second most popular sport for men in Europe". This is once in two years anyway. – H T  D  12:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because not every country in Europe has the same culture. Kevin McE (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is true, but the Brits don't care (not as much) about basketball anyway, and Europeans would likely flock to watch a team that is playing the continent's 2nd most popular sport at a European city. – H  T  D  13:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no way that handball can fairly be described as Europe's second most popular sport, unless you are going by very particular criteria. That would make it more popular than tennis, golf, rugby, swimming, Formula 1, basketball, hockey and cycling. We don't even need sources to know that this is not the case. Formerip (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of those you listed above are individual sports. The source given was about team sports. I don't see why we wouldn't need a source to prove that a sourced claim is not true.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Add the other Grand Tours
The Grand Tours are the most important cycling events other than the Olympics. They even have special status when it comes to the UCI World Tour. I propose adding the Giro d'Italia and the Vuelta a España to complement the Tour de France. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a reason UCI "ranks" Tour de France higher, and rightly so... – H T  D  13:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a cycling fan, and would be delighted to see the other tours posted at least from time to time. I would also like to see more coverage of one day classics, and have more than once proposed the World Road Race Championships at ITN/C  (got posted only when won by an Anglophone, surprise surprise).  However, I must vote according to the principle I set out above: not be based on "I think this is important", but on "I believe that the community will agree on the importance of this" and so, regretfully, I oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm generally in favour of having a faster turnover of ITN in general. These seem like good candidates, though they would occur during the sport-heavy time of the year. Can we see how the Giro d'Italia does in an ITN/C candidacy before considering ITN/R? Was it nominated in 2012? LukeSurlt c 13:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I believe it was posted. Of course, that doesn't automatically make it suitable for ITNR, and I think there were some circumstances which, it was claimed, made last year's win particularly noteworthy. Formerip (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was posted, but as with the 2011 WC, on the basis of anglophone victory. The Giro was nominated, but not posted, in 2011 and 2009. Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The 2012 Giro was historic from a Canadian perspective. Resolute 20:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kevin's reluctant oppose; there might be potential for these to be recurring in the future, but there should be a consistent history of community support before that happens. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, in accord with KevinMcE and 331dot. I'll be supporting good nominations for these at ITN when they appear, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

discussion or not?
Was there a discussion when the association football cup item disputed here was added to ITNR? Shouldn't there be a permalink on ITNR to all the individual discussions backing up these additions? If we can't provide such links all such additions should be removed when challenged, and new discussions held to reinstate them. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If it hasn't been challenged in five years, it would seem to have been accepted by default. It certainly shouldn't be removed while a relevant item is under discussion.  331dot (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "by default" is not a link, nor is it consensus. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If no one was moved enough in five years to call for it to be removed, there would seem to be a consensus to (at a minimum) not remove it, if not specifically keep it. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus should be based on weight of reasoning: no reasoning, no consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was there for five years shouldn't just be ignored. If people tacitly accepted it for that long that should be taken into consideration. I also find it dubious that it is just stripped out in the middle of a discussion about the very issue being removed from ITNC.  You've had five years to strip it out, it seems odd to do it now. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with 331. Removing it during a current ITN/C discussion doesn't seem helpful really. If there are items people dispute the place on ITN/R, the time when then actually are occurring is the absolute worst time to mount a removal campaign, massively disruptive and hugely discouraging to editors trying to improve the article to reflect the current event. LukeSurlt c 22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't agree with that Luke, it does not matter when an item is challenged, if, as in this case, it appears to have been added without any discussion then it should be removed when that comes to light and it is challenged and discussion can then be had as to re-adding it. The burden of proof is on thoes wishing to retain an item that consesns exited for it's inclusion in the first place. If we were to follow your reasoning (and not wishing to have a case of WP:BEANS) someone could add for example the Japanese hole digging competition to the list promply add a nomination and claim ITN/R and use this discussison as a precedent for non-removal. LightGreenApple  talk to me  22:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The equivalent there is that if you changed ITN/R just before this Digging Championship final. This discussion-free decision, just like the removal now, would be seen and reverted. While whatever discussion or diktat lead to the addition of the Cup of Nations in 2008 is probably lost to time, the fact that it hasn't been removed in the last 5 years shows it was generally accepted. I'd ask that editors have a look through the ITN/R list now, as one is always able to, and challenge anything now, rather than wait till it comes up in ITN/C where a challenge would cause the most disruption. LukeSurlt c 22:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It was removed during the ITN/C debate partly because the main defender of ITN/R status as placing it as above debate suggested it, and partly because of the refusal of contributors there to provide any meaningful reasoning as to the importance of the event, when consensus as to this has never been established by discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
Why not just have a well advertised rfc covering all sports itn/r items that have not attained consensus for addition. Anything that is closed as no consensus should be removed. Hopefully that would sort it out once and for all. AIR corn (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We should seek consensus for removal, not for retention, as the majority of the events have been there for several years unchallenged. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But isn't ITN/r supposed to be for items that shouldn't need to go through the nominations process because there suitability is well established. If there is not consensus to have it listed here then it is not obvious that it would have consensus there. These are kind of analogous to the SNG's. AIR corn (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I maintain that if such events in question have remained on ITNR for many years unchallenged, there it a tacit consensus to (at a minimum) not remove them; the burden should be on those seeking removal of long-listed events. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree; where inclusion is challenged, it is incumbent upon those who favour inclusion to defend it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ....which is done in a proper discussion initiated by those seeking removal of a long standing event. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There obviously isn't or we wouldn't be having these debates. AIR corn (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You would be right, if the event had not been there long. The soccer tournament in dispute has been listed for five years.  If no one was moved enough to seek its removal in five years, they must at least be willing to tolerate it, if not outright support it. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And this will find that out. If many more support it than oppose then it will have consensus. If it is close then it obviously does not. AIR corn (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (@ 331 dot)Or perhaps not be aware that of its listing here, and that such would be used as a battering ram against those who would dare to question the importance of a match between two teams outside the world's top 50 at ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then it's up to you to make people aware of that during any such discussion; you seem more than capable of doing so. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Add OFC Nations Cup
Simply put, OFC Nations Cup is as meritorious as any of the other FIFA divisional cups; the rationales given for the others applies equally to this one, whose absence is an oversight that appears to have been missed. In brief: these events are a tier below the FIFA World Cup in terms of prestige, being international tournaments in one of (if not the) largest sports in the world. One story is to be expected every second year, though it should be noted that 2006's cup was not held so it may not be a sure entry (though another monkey wrench on par with Australia's defection is unlikely). GRAPPLE  X  00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as long as other continental tournaments are listed as it is the same level of play. Skill of the teams doesn't figure into how these tournaments are divided. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose We feature sports events according to whether they represent the highest level of sport, not some token of fairness.  The OFC championship will never have a comparable standard to the Euros or the Copa América.  This is equivalent to saying that we have The Rugby Championship and the Six Nations Championship, so we must have the Africa Cup, the South American Rugby Championship, and the Asian Five Nations.  Kevin McE (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No, this is too much. Jus  da  fax   00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Far from a top level sporting event that even Australia doesn't want to be a part of it. And this is from a Kiwi, who would see their team mentioned every second year. Oh wait... AIR corn (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose As a fellow New Zealander, I agree with Aircorn. New Zealand are the highest ranked team in the OFC at 91, and the confederation doesn't even have a guaranteed place in the World Cup. I think that gives a pretty good indication of its lack of strength; it's a far cry from the African Cup of Nations. And it doesn't get a lot of attention in other parts of the world, again unlike the ACN. Neljack (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Quality and international coverage is too poor. The five other federations all have at least seven teams ranked above the best OFC team. The current OFC members have only played in the World Cup once (New Zealand in 1982). PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Twice. AIR corn (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that. Twice, without advancing from the group stage or winning a match. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: add the Africa Cup, the South American Rugby Championship, and the Asian Five Nations
Apparently we are not meant to pass judgement on the notability of sports on the basis of the standard at which a sport is played, but to ensure that all continents are treated equally. I had never heard of these events until I just looked them up, but obscurity and poor quality are not, it would appear, relevant. Kevin McE (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

African Cup of Nations
Proposal : That the African Cup of Nations be added to the list of soccer events. LightGreenApple talk to me  22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, done. Formerip (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Appalling contempt for consensus building. Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are seeking to undo a tacit consensus and have tried to do so unilaterally, instead of building a consensus for your view. Who should have contempt for who?  (which, I don't.  Just asking the question). 331dot (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose High likelihood that each edition will only include very few of the top 20 or 30 ranked teams in the world, and very likely none of the top ten, so cannot be confidently assumed to represent the sport at a particularly high level. If level of competition in some years is particularly high, it could be posted via ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This proposal should be to remove it, not to add it. It was accepted for five years; no one challenged it in that time and removing it in the middle of a discussion is improper. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep on the list as long as other continental championships are there. They should all be removed or kept; we shouldn't judge some more important that others if it is the same level of play (continental). 331dot (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, but seriously. ITN/R should exist to allow relaxed, community-consensus decisions to be made ahead of events, avoiding the rush when they actually occur. Unfortunately, on this occasion it's worked in reverse, making what should have been a straightforward affair complicated and busy.
 * Now on ITN/C, playing the "it's on ITN/R so there" card probably wasn't the most cohesive move, and managed to fold in procedural arguments within a "normal" ITN/C discussion. Note that some editors have also written some prose on why the Cup of Nations is noticeable. After this story is posted we have two years till the next tournament. I suggest we take 24 hours to clear our heads, then take however long we need to to form consensus as to whether the Cup of Nations is an ITN/R item or not. OK? --LukeSurlt c 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. But the proper procedure is that you get one shot at a bold edit, which is way past spent. The proposal should be for the removal of the item, or it is meaningless. Formerip (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to raise BRD (which has no statute of limitations), whoever added it in 2008 was bold, and I reverted it. So noone else should reinstate the bold change without establishing consensus here first. Kevin McE (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support retention. This was a pretty ham-fisted way to go about things, but if support for a long-standing addition is suddenly needed, here's mine. This is behind only the FIFA World Cup in international association football, on a level footing with the Euro, Gold Cup and Copa América, etc. Ruling out one is frankly stupid, and since there seems no proposal here to remove the others I can't see any good-faith merit in the removal whatsoever. GRAPPLE   X  23:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You have evidently decided to draw a line below which the Asian and Oceanian championships fall, so you evidently accept that there is a cut off point of quality below which continental championships do not deserve a free pass. There may have been, and may in the future be, years in which a number of competitors in the ACN (or the Gold Cup, currently highest 4 CONCACAF teams are ranked 15, 28, 38 and 46 in the world) are genuinely world class, and the case can be made for it being a high standard of competition.  But we cannot assume that such a case can be made every time the events occur, so your position seems inconsistent.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest. You seem not to understand the term "etc". I'll wait while you go catch up on that. GRAPPLE   X  23:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But not all the evnts that you claim to be covered by your etc are listed at ITN/R. Are you about to propose the OFC championship?  If you do not, my observation as to your inconsistency stands.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposed, hadn't noticed it was the only one missing. Now if you don't have anything with more merit than "hur dur your list wasn't exhaustive" then I'm done. GRAPPLE   X  00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove - It is just too much, per Kevin. His style ain't always my cuppa, but he's on the money on this. There is no consensus. Come on. Jus  da  fax   00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * when was it removed, and by what reasoning? Anyway   I support retention.  It gets widespread coverage. It's the biggest sporting event in Africa.  It features globally known footballers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support retention There is nothing that says only the top level of a sport should be included. If that was the case we would only have one event for soccer: the World Cup. Similarly we would only have the Rugby World Cup for rugby, and so on. Ultimately, this is about the level of notability and interest. There is lots of interest in the African Cup of Nations, both in Africa and elsewhere. Like it or not (and I'm not a great fan), soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and so we can justify having soccer tournaments that aren't quite the highest level in here. Neljack (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * propose closing discussion. It's already on ITNR, after being removed and some reverts.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral towards whether this belongs on ITN/R, but it should not be removed until there is consensus to remove it. It has been posted multiple times in the past few years without successful challenge, so consensus at this point is ITN/R.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new purpose: overruling local consensus
From the current version of this page: "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN" with the strong implication that consensus for this has been achieved. I have been reading WP:ITNC regularly, and this is clearly not always the case. Several of the items have been demonstrated to have been added with less discussion than a typical ITNC nomination. I still believe, however, that WP:ITNR can serve an important purpose. ITNC can only provide a limited consensus. Furthermore, due to the nature of news, there are limited possibilities for the project to overrule a local decision to not post something. For instance, it is conceivable that the project as a whole may wish to treat all sovereign countries equally with regards to main page posting of elections, while ITNC opposes the nomination of Burkina Faso's election but accepts Montenegro's. In fact one of the stated purposes of ITNR is that it "assists editors in ensuring a reasonably balanced coverage (...) over time" (i.e. avoiding systemic bias. For this reason I propose that the list is emptied (barring items that were demonstrably widely discussed with a clear consensus), and that the purpose of the list is changed to be a list of recurring events that have been widely discussed, and the discussion achieved a consensus to always post that is larger than the consensuses regularly achieved at ITNC. (Perhaps the list should suggest standardised blurbs, to further strenghten the purpose of limiting systemic bias.) Of course, addition and removal discussions will need to be advertised widely if ITNR is to fulfill its new purpose. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sub-proposal: Standardised blurbs
In the proposal above I have outlined a potential benefit to a reformed ITNR. I also mention in passing the concept of standardised blurbs. You might reasonably question the value of the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics being listed at either the rebooted or current ITNR as it will always pass ITNC swiftly. However, if you compare this with this, including the subsequent series of edits to refine the blurbs, I see a potential value in listing consensus-decided standardised blurbs for recurring events. Any thoughts? 88.88.165.222 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: add the Asian Australian Football Championships, the European Championships in Australian Football
If we include the top event in Australia, it is apparently to be made obligatory to include the top event in other continents as well, regardless of the standard. Kevin McE (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't this WP:POINT? 331dot (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to see it as reductio ad absurdum Kevin McE (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

One darn thing at a time, please?
We've got an original discussion above that is 11 to 7 in favor of scrapping ITNR with many of the opposes in favor of a "reboot" which implies a scrapping first. Let's please continue or close that discussion with a formal closure before we star any more confusion of the issue. The above sub-proposals should be closed until the first issue is addressed and a consensus announced. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "which implies a scrapping first" - No, a reboot would be to review the procedure / the listing. That's totally separate from scrapping the idea of the policy itself. 174.114.112.77 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that confusing- we have one proposal to scrap ITNR and not do anything else; and another proposal to reform/replace it with something new. Some of the support votes in the first proposal also suggest a restart of some kind. The other minor proposals should be held in abeyance until these two are weighed and discussed. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Add promotion of Yokozuna
In September of last year, to unanimous support we posted the promotion of Harumafuji Kōhei to the rank of Yokozuna, the highest rank in sumo.

To list promotion to Yokozuna as an ITN/R item.
 * Proposal


 * Rationale
 * There are currently no ITN/R items for sumo, which is a major sport in East Asia.
 * This is the highest accolade in the sport.
 * There was clear consensus to post the last occurrence of this event (see above), and there is no particular reason why the next Yokozuna promotion will be a significantly different type of event.
 * The event occurs fairly rarely, approximately once every two years (see List of Yokozuna).

--LukeSurlt c 20:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree but simultaneously question the point of this since we know it's rare, we know we have to wait for a suitably decent update to the article, and we still have to "vote" in favour of ITN/R candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the main benefit of having it on ITN/R would be that people may be more likely to be looking out for it, so that the next one doesn't pass us by! --LukeSurlt c 20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair enough to keep something on the radar like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, in absolute agreement with LukeSurl's initial proposal and his reply to The Rambling Man above. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This event is rare and is extremely important for sumo. I am surprised we do not have an ITN/R item for sumo already, considering it is the national sport of one of the world's most important countries. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Sensible proposal, not much more to add. The only real alternative would be to list each year's results, but I think reaching the rank of Yokozuna is a better option, and will have better article/update. Modest Genius talk 23:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Sensible proposal, and will add some regional variety. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering the above, can this be considered consensus to add? I would appreciate this if could be closed and acted on if an admin sees fit. --LukeSurlt c 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Halfway-house: ITN/R probation
The following is a proposal to facilitate both adding and removing items to and from the ITN/R list, by engaging with the full ITN community, whilst leaving uncontroversial items alone. Steps 1 and 2 could be done in a big, systematic and comprehensive RfC if desired.
 * The procedure
 * 1) An editor who wishes to either add or remove an item to the list writes a short reasoning here at WT:ITN/R
 * 2) Other editors are invited to endorse this position. If sufficient agreement occurs that demonstrates at least a substantial minority of editors endorse the addition/removal the item is given "probationary" status. This step would not require full consensus, only enough endorsements to show it is not a completely isolated view.
 * 3) The item is listed on ITN/R with a "probationary item" tag next to it. If the item has been nominated for removal, the tag is added to the current listing.
 * 4) The next time the event recurs it is treated as a typical ITN/C item. The nomination would be marked "This recurring event is being considered for listing on ITN/R. Comments regarding the general notability of the event are welcome in this assessment." Editors are encouraged to give full reasoning regarding the item's notability (no "support as per ITN/R")
 * 5) Should there be consensus the item is notable or not, the item's listing is decided accordingly (if no consensus them probationary status remains)
 * 6) Re-nominating an item that has been through probation for its last occurrence would be discouraged.
 * Advantages
 * The procedure to add an item and remove one are near-identical.
 * Retains ITN/R's useful secondary function as a "reminder of things we might want to nominate".
 * Will only affect controversial items.
 * Prevents the inertia of seemingly requiring full consensus to even have a discussion about the list, a cause of much frustration.
 * Prevents the somewhat chicken-and-egg situation of whether an ITN/C nomination comes first or ITN/R discussion.
 * Brings the ultimate decision to ITN/C, rather than hiding it on WT:ITN/R which is less well-visited. Effectively uses the main decision-making apparatus of ITN to make decisions about ITN, equalling the widest possible community involvement.


 * 1) An editor nominates Remove: X' on WP:ITN/R
 * 2) A few other editors endorse this. An admin notices that the removal has reasonable support.
 * 3) X's listing on ITN/R is marked with a "probationary" tag.
 * 4) Next time X occurs it is nominated like a standard item, with a note on ITN/C regarding its status.
 * 5) If the community decides a regular occurrence of X is not notable, it is removed from ITN/R.

--LukeSurlt c 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure how we judge "only enough endorsements to show it is not a completely isolated view". As shown above, there are many examples of this community being unable to agree that a topic is no longer ITN/R-worthy, how does this differ, who judges this?  Seems like less of a "half-way" and more of a "maintain the status quo almost entirely" position.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd think that number would be about 5 given the current ITN regular "population", though weight of argument would always trump numbers. Our resident admins use judgement on ITN/C daily, I assume this would be within their capabilities. --LukeSurlt c 21:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why everything on ITN should be decided by ITN regulars, hence my proposal above. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Partial support, as better than outright removal or doing nothing. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Consideration that one edition of an event is important enough to post does not logically lead to the conclusion that it will be perennially important enough (a sports event with a particular resonance, an historic change in government rather than a purely routine election, a a slow news week, yielding to a particularly insistent proponent, consensus swayed by influx of interested parties,...) Kevin McE (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on point 4 of the procedure I assumed that comments supporting posting while opposing ITNR would be an option. If this is incorrect I agree with you. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've generally supported scrapping ITNR above, so I'm not disagreeing with the oppose, just the rationale. Are you seriously arguing that the World Cup final or the election of the U.S. President or the like would ever simply be ignored by news sources?  I oppose ITNR because it isn't practical, but not because the concept isn't sound.  There are some events which it would be foolish to think that, with a good article behind it, would ever get ignored by news sources.   -- Jayron  32  23:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as a starting point, if nothing else. I also wouldn't mind starting with a fresh list of events so we can avoid the "it wasn't discussed five years ago/it's been there for five years" debate. 331dot (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal:World Nine-ball Championship
I don't know much about this sport, but as it failed to get posted in 2011 and failed to get nominated in 2012 it doesn't seem to be ITNR material. (Also consider: 2012 WPA World Nine-ball Championship) 88.88.165.222 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC) (I tested WikiBlame and found the addition based on this discussion where "9-ball" was mentioned twice.) 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove agree with nom, this seems like cruft cruft. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove no idea even what this championship means, the article linked is so pathetic, I nearly choked to death when I saw it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. Not significant enough, never properly discussed, and as far as I am aware never previously posted. Should go to ITN/C if there's ever a decent article. Modest Genius talk 13:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove per above remove !votes. Jus  da  fax   20:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every year. Listing at ITN/R would not serve to avoid an annual discussion with an entirely predictable outcome, which is the only reason for listing something at ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. If it's not getting posted despite being listed, then it shouldn't be on the list. It clearly isn't that notable. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding Exhibitions, fairs and summits timing
For Exhibitions, fairs and summits, should these be posted when they begin or when they end? It would be good to clarify. --LukeSurlt c 12:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say opening for fairs and exhibitions, by comparison to the multi-sport events. Additionally, the link to the article will probably be more useful if available when the event is active. For summits, I can see post-summit being preferable, in case something gets decided. 88.88.164.36 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - opening for fairs and exhibitions. Closing for summits, because that's when the decisions/agreements are announced. Modest Genius talk 21:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion proposal: Olympic host city announcements
The two most recent had unanimous support. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since we are going to be reviewing the entire list(see above discussion about ITNR decommissioning), I would suggest any further suggested additions or removals be held in abeyance and discussed in the context of reforming the entire list and once how such a discussion should be carried out is determined. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Any thoughts on how this discussion should be carried out? 88.88.165.222 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My initial suggestion would probably be that we simply start the list over and determine what should be on it anew, but I'm sure the community will fashion a means to carry out the review of the list. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support the idea of re-working the list but I don't think it is at all clear from the above discussion that there is consensus to do it. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of the votes opposing decommissioning outright (and some who supported it) still conceded that the list should be reformed or reworked in some fashion; that was the sense I got anyway. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So having discussions about which items should be added/removed is a good thing. No need to stop having them while we wait for some unspecified action. Modest Genius talk 13:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but I just hope we don't end up discussing these issues again relatively soon. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose announce the city once it's selected, otherwise it's just a bunch of "also rans". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The final selection (i.e. IOC's announcement) is what I've nominated (see links). I would not support posting (let alone listing on ITNR) variations of "London announces its candidacy to host the 2012 Summer Olympics".88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support seems obvious.   Hot Stop     (Talk)   05:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, yes, the selected city is a very newsworthy item and only occurs once every four years. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per The Rambling Man. Pretty much exactly the sort of think ITN/R is for. LukeSurlt c 21:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly notable and has always been posted in the past. Is this intended to cover the Winter Olympics as well? Modest Genius talk 13:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence the link to the 2018 announcement. While less notable than the Summer Olympics, I think the Winter Olympics are sufficiently notable. 88.88.164.36 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose we post the opening, closing and sticky the event, there is no need to post the host city or other cruft surrounding the games. --IP98 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The opening/closing event is entirely different, both in significance and timing, to the awarding of the host city (which is usually something like seven years before the event itself). It costs host cities billions and billions of pounds/dollars/euros to host the Olympics.  The award of the host city could hardly be considered "cruft".  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, if ITN/R 'must' exist. It is removed from the event itself by several years, so repetition of same event not an issue.  Hard to imagine that there would be appreciable opposition on any occasion on which it is nominated, so listing at ITN/R would serve to avoid a recurrent discussion with an entirely predictable outcome, which is its purpose. Kevin McE (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly notable and of wide interest, which is not expected to change for the foreseeable future(except to perhaps only grow in such interest).  331dot (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - As a news item of worldwide interest and limited occurrence. As it appears consensus does not exist at this time to remove INT/R, this is a logical inclusion. Jus  da  fax   21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Protection for WP:ITNR
ITN/R is changing. There was no consensus to scrap it, and some items are now under discussion. I would like to propose the following:
 * 1) Protect WP:ITNR so that only admins can edit it
 * 2) Require admin closure of a WT:ITNR nomination before the change is made on WP:ITNR
 * 3) Link to the revision ID of the WT:ITNR discussion where consensus was gained for the item

The top two points would have ITN/R function the same way as ITN/C, and the third is a convenience for our descendants so that their future discussions of ITN/R items will be able to reference ours. I think this is fairly easy and non-controversial. --IP98 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. --IP98 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose On what grounds? Is it currently being vandalized or is there a current edit war going on?  I don't see either looking at the history, the ITNR page has been edited like 3 times in the past month and a half.  If there isn't, then I don't see any reason to protect it.  Insofar as there isn't any shenanigans, then ANY editor should be able to close and interpret a discussion here regarding the addition and removal of items (or even the complete scrapping thereof) and enact the results.  Admins absolutely do not have special privileges to close discussions and enact their results, except in the limited cases where their tools are needed; the ITN template is protected because it appears on the main page, which is why admins are needed to add stuff to it.  There is no other reason for that, if it weren't so protected, it wouldn't need any admin involvement at all.  Same here: ITNR is not highly visible, and is not being disruptively edited, so it doesn't need protection OR admin involvement at all.  The fact that the discussions here have opposing viewpoints is NOT a compelling reason to protect the page, lots of discussions have opposing viewpoints, and the fact that those opposing viewpoints have NOT spilled over into the ITNR page in the form of edit warring is proof that everything is working just fine, and that admins DON'T need to invoke their tools to fix anything.  No, nothing it to be gained by protecting anything, and any editor in good standing should be allowed to interpret consensus from discussions here and enact their results.  -- Jayron  32  15:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply I strongly disagree with the last part of your statement, that "any editor in good standing should be allowed to interpret consensus from discussions here and enact their results". I think having some admin closure of a discussion is important to give the discussion finality, and to keep the process orderly. You'll notice that admin closure was needed to implement the RD section, and to lift the requirement for the image to be aligned with the top most item for living persons. How is this different? All ITN/C discussions take admin closure, why not ITN/R? Why not have the same process for both? --IP98 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, admins weren't required to implement the RD section, and to lift the requirement. You'll notice that at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure it states "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Most discussions do not need to follow a formal process for closing and summarizing the result."  (bold mine).  You will find nowhere, in no official policy at Wikipedia, that admin status is required to close and enact any discussion whose closure would not involve the use of admin tools.  The only discussions that do require admin closure are those where enacting the results would need an admin to use their tools.  ITNC requires that only because the ITN template is fully protected, and that is only because it is on the main page.  In almost no other contexts (and I use almost, just as a hedge against someone finding one, not that I believe there is one) does the admin status carry special weight with regard to closing and enacting discussions, except those as noted that specifically require admin tools for technical reasons.  Now, admins often close discussions where there tools aren't needed only because they are highly experienced editors, but it has nothing to do with the admin bit.  If there is not a compelling reason for the specific use of admin tools (protection, deletion, blocking) then there is never a reason for admins specifically to be needed for a task.  Ever.  The admin flag on someone's account is not and endorsement that those editors have a special status that any other well-experienced editor doesn't have except in regard to the specific use of those tools that admins have been assigned.  If you believe this to be otherwise, if you think admins should be granted special powers beyond the use of their tools, you'll find that you are definitely NOT supported by consensus at Wikipedia.  You will find no policy or guideline that recognizes that, and if you wish to make that explicit, you would have to start a discussion to do so and see where the community lies.  Having seen hundreds of those discussions myself, consensus has ALWAYS been that admins do NOT have special preference in the scenarios where their tools aren't being explicitly used.  This is one of those scenarios, which is why admins DO NOT have special status to do so over other editors.  Admins are of course allowed to close such discussions as this, but in doing so they do so merely because they are experienced editors, and any experienced editor, even without the mop, has the same standing.  -- Jayron  32  17:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was very thorough. I do think overall that an ITN/R nom should follow a similar process to an ITN/C nom, but you've clearly indicated that admin involvement is not required. As a sort of off-topic, how to other Wikipedia discussions not turn into revert wars and battlegrounds? --IP98 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Simple, if people do that, they get blocked for being disruptive. There's enough admins around who will block people who stand in the way or otherwise disrupt normal processes at Wikipedia.  That the person who closed the discussion isn't an admin shouldn't cause someone else to revert them anymore than if they were an admin, and if that happens, action can be taken.  -- Jayron  32  17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support #3; that can only be helpful in related discussions. I think #1 and #2 should only be done on an as-needed basis. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support #3, the other two clauses are entirely unecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Conditional support, if and only if a thorough review is undertaken, including comprehensive discussion of the principles for inclusion at ITN/R. ITN/R claims extraordinary authority, so it needs to be held to the highest account. Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be part of an overall review, and that some !rules for including an item at ITN/R be adopted. --IP98 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Minimum level of discussion required
The IP has indicated An additional point to consider is the lack of discussion for some of the older items on the list.. The IP and Kevin McE have further indicated that a lack of "consensus" should be grounds for removal. Given that a
 * 1) Not all editors routinely check WT:ITN/R
 * 2) Many recurring items only occur once a year
 * 3) Editors who may be interested in advancing recurring event X to the main page may only check WT:ITN/C when their event occurs and that
 * 4) Those editors may be surprised to find that suddenly an event which they felt was routinely going up due to being on ITN/R is now being kicked around annually on notability grounds

I would like to propose that:
 * 1) No single item be removed from ITN/R until everyone who has commented on that item during it's last three ITN/C cycles be contacted and advised of it's consideration at WT:ITN/R
 * 2) Any of those contributors who chooses not to comment here be considered a keep !vote, if they !voted Support at ITN/C. It's logical since those individuals took the time to comment on the item at ITN/C.
 * 3) And finally, that it be a requirement for whomever nominates an ITN/R item for removal to make the necessary notifications or to find that removal nomination nullified.

I think it should be considered as seriously as an AFD nom, where people who had contributed to an article be notified of it's possible deletion and be given a chance to stop it. --IP98 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. --IP98 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as instruction creep, too complex, though I appreciate the intent here. I think we do need some sort of review and overhaul of ITNR, but this is far too messy and complicated to work.  -- Jayron  32  15:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron, though I too appreciate the intent. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Thank you both for understanding. I knew it was a long shot, but threw it out there as a genuine suggestion. I do think we need to work out some process, instruction creep not withstanding. If items can be flippantly removed and deleted from ITN/R, then it negates one of the key benefits of ITN/R, and essentially makes the whole sub-project irrelevant and dismissible. --IP98 (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and I find the suggestion that we allow non-reply to be a keep vote an abhorrent innovation. Proposing that, especially while not considering previous opposition to default to a remove vote, appears to be a deliberate attempt to manipulate the outcome.  Kevin McE (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose if people are still interested in ITN/R, this is the place to find out about it. Items should be discussed here and unless there is a positive consensus to keep the item on ITN/R, it should be removed.  All the bureaucracy proposed above is honourable but quite over the top.  However, it is pure fallacy to suggest that someone who thought something three years (or more) ago would think the same thing today.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Thanks for your feedback. I concede that 3 years is a bit much. Here is the scenario I'm trying to avoid: Given recurring event X which is on ITN/R and has been for many years when the threshold for inclusion was a bit cloudy. During the last occurrence of X, it was nominated at ITN/C, got a few support !votes, was updated, and posted to the template. If X is nominated for removal here, it may be deleted from ITN/R even though it got support during it's last cycle on ITN/C. Further, if the proposal from the IP above, supported by Kevin McE is adopted, then no consensus would have an item stricken from ITN/R, even if it had been here for some time and had easily passed it's last ITN/C. I don't think it's a far fetched scenario. --IP98 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Removal from ITN/R does not mean prohibition from ITN/C. If someone interested in annual event X's appearance on the main page does not visit ITN/C at the appropriate time, they have pretty much lost the right to complain if it is not nominated.  However, I see no reason why there could not be a template on talk of the article of the main event to draw attention to ITN status, and removal of this would alert aficionados to the need to petition at ITN/C.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Jayron, though simple talk page notifications on the most relevant articles may be a good idea for notifying interested parties. LukeSurlt c 16:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)