Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

[Kept] Change/Removal proposal: Millennium Prize

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The "Millennium Prize" link targets to Millennium Prize Problem. Shall it be changed to Millennium Technology Prize piped or unpiped? Alternatively, it can be removed based on consensus. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Obvious keep in 15 years, only 1 of the 7 problems have been solved. When it comes to math, there aren't any many other more fundamental problems to be solved. They are like curing cancer, but for math. Nergaal (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That said, is the prize "recurring" which is what ITN/R is for? (Please note, I have zero doubts that when a Millennium Prize is awarded, that it should be ITN.) --MASEM (t) 22:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Remove because it is not a regularly recurring item, and as such should not take up space on the recurring items list. I too have no doubt about its meriting posting, but there is no way to know when or if these will be awarded(and if they are, I assume that will be the end of the prize). 331dot (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as a hugely significant prize in mathematics that we can safely assume will be judged significant enough to post every time. Admittedly it's not regularly recurring, but nor are many other items on the list (elections, eclipses, America's cup etc.). It certainly fits in the awards section. Finally, the Millennium Technology Prize is completely different and unrelated; it should not be on ITNR. Modest Genius ^talk 14:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree that elections are not regularly recurring; many occur at regular intervals(US Congress and President) or supposed to at least(even in the UK now). 331dot (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Many are regular, but many are not. Can you tell me when the next election in Somalia or Libya will be? Even elections in the Netherlands do not have a fixed schedule (maximum of five years, but often four), and I could give numerous other examples. Almost all jurisdictions allow early elections if there's a vote of no confidence, which also don't fit the regular schedule. Modest Genius ^talk 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For the purposes of semantics at ITN/R, it is easier to categorize all national elections as generally recurring events, recognizing that some are one-offs, and the like, but the bulk are regular, and that we know they at least will happen. With the Millennium Prize, it is a question of "if", not "when", as the hypothesis that starts these problems is that the proof appears impossible. If a proof is given and approved, that's clearly ITN, but it is far from a regular event to be on ITN/R. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec)They are at least intended to occur with some sort of regularity or knowledge that there will be another in the future(even rigged elections or those without choices like in North Korea) in the vast majority of countries purporting to have them. This prize does not occur on a regular basis, and when it's over, it will be over. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep rare enough event, and major enough when it happens, to be worth posting. I can't see actively trying to block the posting of any of these if we have a quality article to highlight. --Jayron32 03:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Rare" means it's not recurring. That's why its being suggested for removal, not that when it is actually awarded that it wouldn't be posted (pending article quality). --MASEM (t) 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep just because it isn't frequent, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a clear ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Remove as not a recurring event that could be planned for, etc. I have no doubt that it will make ITN as a significant event, but part of the point of the ITNR list is to be able to predict how many news articles will already be reserved. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Added] Proposal : Add Turing Award

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This would be under a new "Technology" or "Science" banner under awards, but the Turing Award (given once per year) is equated to the Nobel Prize in the field of computer science + technology. The award appears to be regularly covered by mainstream sources (this year has NYTimes, and a spot check of past years shows NYTimes, CBS News, WSJ, etc. all reporting on it). As with other awards, it's the person(s) that get the award that would be highlighted in the ITN blurb. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support because of course before posting it has be up to quality standards, and the award is internationally recognised. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Internationally recognized as the top award in its field. Seems to get notable coverage, meaning readers will be interested. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support the often used moniker "Nobel Prize of computer science" is not an exaggeration. Thue (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• I'm surprising myself here but I really am reluctant about this. Yes, I'm more than aware of the prize but I should be as a CS graduate, and yes, I have seen the "equivalent of the Nobel prize" description myself. However, I've also seen it for plenty of other awards. In all cases it is simply used as shorthand for the top award in the respective field. There are no true equivalents to the Nobels in terms of the sheer amount of interest and publicity they generate. Are we going to post all the imposters?

My second point would be the subject matter itself: a lot of the time it is pretty dry stuff. That goes for the Nobels as well of course, but in that case there is bona fide interest in the results. Is that true here? It is not our job to tell people what they should be interested based on lofty ideals of worthiness, but to direct the reader to articles of interest. I don't see this one getting across that barrier in the general case. On occasion such as this year, yes, it may happen. That doesn't mean it should go up each and every year regardless of the recipient or reason for the award. Hence, consider it at ITN/C on a case by case basis. If it gets a track record of going up then it can be reconsidered.

Finally, I have a wider concern about our ability to assess the significance of hi-tech stories in general and computing in particular. For example, although I was fairly new to Wikipedia when the story on 3D gates went up (discussion here[1]) and certainly hadn't made it to ITN/C it struck me as a strange story to go up. Looking at that discussion the consensus was that it was some once-in-a-generation game changer, only one voice was saying it was just one in a long sequence of developments, and even he or she supported the re-nomination. With five year's hindsight to be honest who the hell cares? It hasn't transformed the industry overnight. You'd have to say that lone opponent called it right. Yes, that is but one example but I think it makes the point well: we're all sat in front of computers, many of us will have particular interest in them. We shouldn't allow that interest to create a false sense of importance towards the sector. 3142 (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A way to look at this is that presently, there is nothing in ITNR that reflects on computer science, unless it is given out as part of other awards. Its a very valid and academic area of study and one that compared to many Nobel award efforts, come to realization in daily life much faster. So the addition of one "guaranteed" news story a year about a recognized milestone of computer science is far from overwhelming the other ITNR or ITNC in any situation. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So there's nothing on ITNR about computer science. So what? No field of endeavour has some automatic right to feature on ITN, yet alone ITNR, there is no quota of stories a given field has a right to expect. Are you proposing that we post "Plumber of the Year" or other industry titles? Wheres the line? ITNR is to highlight stories of general interest and it hasn't been demonstrated here - I'm not talking about stub articles in the specialist sections of the odd newspaper website - where is the coverage in the main running order of mainstream broadcast news? The Nobels can show that. The Turing award can't. 3142 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A Google News search on Turing Award shows at least 2000 hits from this award given last week, including all major mainstream sources (NYTimes, LATimes, WaPost, and other world papers). So this did get mainstream coverage. That itself is sorta key here , in that while it might not get as detailed coverage as the Nobel's , it is clearly on the same order as those. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support considering that IT is such an important field these days, I think it should be ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  Once is enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Add Women's World Chess Championship

We have the male version at ITNR, but not this one. Getting strong support and some surprise that isn't treated equally with the male variant. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - but let's widen this. If a Mens (sport) tournament is ITN/R, then the equivelent Women's (sport) tournament should be too. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots I think you need to make this a separate proposal - this discussion is for this nomination only. MurielMary (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support Count me among those expressing surprise that this is not given equal treatment. I recognize that it does not get equal coverage as the men's tournament, but that can't justify overt bias on our part, especially when it's applied to recurring items. Therefore, I also agree with the sentiment expressed by Mjroots above (as a practical guideline, if not a hard rule). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 12:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know if this should be included or not, but it's only bias if the women's tournament gets coverage equal to that of the men's and is still not posted. For example, the fact that we post the Super Bowl does not mean we should post the championship game of one of the many women's football leagues there is, because those get barely any coverage. There may be reasons to post this but it shouldn't be to right the wrong of it not getting the same attention as the men's tournament. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it is about righting wrongs, but about ensuring that the rules aren't stacked against neutrality. ITN/R unavoidably introduces a kind of "bias" by favoring an item with expedited posting (it need only meet quality/update guidelines, debate over notability is moot), so it behooves us to ensure that no systemic bias is allowed to fold itself into this. We post general elections regardless of the country's population, because that's the only neutral way to do it; I view this as an application of the same underlying principle. Your observations are fair enough for regular nominations, because it can easily be debated on the spot whether coverage for this or that is sufficient, or whatever other criteria needs brought up, but ITN/R items should be "gold standard". Regarding women in American football - the issue I see is that no women's football league is an equivalent level of competition to the NFL, and I don't think we post any other US football championships. If there were a Women's Super Bowl of the WNFL, I would say we should absolutely post it even if it got a fraction of the viewers. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 13:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the case of Super Bowl is rather evident, as men are simply physically stronger on average than women. In chess, chances are more even, but the fact is most women still decide to play in a separate women's championship, unlike Judit Polgár who challenged men (as the World Chess Championship is open to women). This speaks for inclusion of the Women's Championship. Maybe someday the WWCC will be abolished and women will compete among men, but not yet, not yet. Brandmeister^talk 13:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The proposal proceeds from a false premise: there is no "men's" title - the main competition is open to both genders. Women don't feature not because they are not eligible on grounds of gender, but because they are not good enough to qualify. If the women's game is thus so demonstrably inferior in what way can the the women's title be considered equivalent to the open one? 3142 (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

ITNR includes several separate women championships in sports with insurmountable male performance, such as association football, tennis or volleyball. Unlike those, various women chess players do compete against men and several of them defeated male GMs multiple times. Some women chess players also produced chess novelties (new moves never made before). So gender-based performance difference in this case doesn't look like a big deal. Brandmeister^talk 20:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose currently the top female is ranked at number 73 in the world. Unlike in physical competitions like say athletics, I don't see a good rationale to have a separate entry featuring only female competitors. Nergaal (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support based on the criteria for ITN and ITN/R - which are the only criteria which should be being consulted in this discussion, by the way. All comments above comparing this event to other events are red herrings; the content and composition and popularity of other similar events, or other events within the same sport, are not relevant to the value of this event. According to ITN's significance criteria, the matters to consider here are the frequency and quality of news reports on the event, for example. It's apparent from the coverage of the 2016 event that there is a range of news reports, and they are in-depth. Therefore the event can be considered as meeting the criteria and able to be added to the ITN/R list. MurielMary (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, hasn't received the attention necessary for inclusion. In general, some sports get quasi-equal attention for men and women (tennis, swimming, athletics, judo, most winter sports...), some sports are competed together (equestrian), and in some sports the attention for the men's (or open) competetion is much greater than for the women. Of those, we have on the one hand things like soccer, where the attention for the women's world championship is considerably smaller than for the men's, but is still more than sufficient for ITN inclusion. On the other hand, there are things like chess, but also e.g. snooker, boxing, ski jumping, where the specific women's compettion gets little to no attention compared to the men's (or open) competition. If someone starts a women F1 racing championship tomorrow, it shouldn't automatically get equal treatment at ITN with the existing (open but in reality men only) competition, unless it gets sufficient attention. ITN (or wikipedia) is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Fram (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the same criteria cited by the users above. There simply is no evidence for broad coverage of the event. Search on Google News and all you find is some very limited coverage in China and Ukraine (where the two competitors come from) and barely two or three other articles outside chess-specialized websites. One of them, by the Guardian, covered the tournament under the heading "Hunt for challenger to Magnus Carlsen has begun at Moscow candidates", as a secondary item, subordinate to qualification for the open championship game. Compare that to (completely justified) ITN/R event of FIFA Women's World Cup, which has much less coverage than the men's tournament, but is reported in practically every publication that covers general sports. It's not about equal rights, it's about coverage. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

[Keep] Removal proposal: The Boat Race

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see this has already been discussed before, where there were significant numbers of opinions both ways.

1. It does not represent the top level of rowing. It only involves students from Cambridge and Oxford University, and obviously the world's best rowers need not attend these two universities. That a few of the teams may be top-level athletes does not matter; most of the rowers are not top level. Notably we've done things like oppose addition of the Women's World Chess Championship to ITNR for this reason.
2. It makes only local news (mostly). You would be hard pressed to find front-page coverage of this in, say, an Argentinian, Sudanese or Japanese newspaper. The implication is that it's not really interesting for most of the world.
3. Viewership numbers are not particularly high. The number mentioned in the linked previous discussion is 270,000, which is well inferior to e.g. Superbowl viewership of 111.9 million, or for example El Clasico viewership of 400 million. AlphaGo vs. Lee Sedol reached 60 million viewers in Chinese coverage, while English coverage still reached ~100,000 live viewers.
4. It involves students from only two universities. There are hundreds and thousands of universities in the world, not to mention rowing clubs. Granted only this race garners that much media attention, but leaving out the others hardly seems fair.

I think this event could be nominated at ITNC and possibly even featured, but it should not be ITNR. Looking through the previous discussion I think most arguments one way or another have already been said. I count 14 removes and 7 keeps in the previous discussion, which by pure numbers alone should be around borderline. What is consensus like now? Banedon (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal per nom. This is a niche event that involves only two elite schools in England and is not a matter of international significance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• As of my count of all bolded votes from the past three discussions I'm aware of, [2], [3] and [4]. As of time of writing the count is 18 opposing to 11 supporting this event's inclusion in ITNR. Therefore, even though there have been previous discussions that finished as "keep", I think this should be discussed again. These editors have supported listing this item in ITNR:

1. ThaddeusB
2. The Rambling Man
3. GoldenRing
4. 86.170.98.9
5. 331dot
6. Bencherlite
7. Sagittarian Milky Way
8. Martinevans123
9. Bzweebl
10. Dweller
11. 31.54.156.31
12. KTC

These editors have opposed listing this item in ITNR:

1. Espresso Addict
2. Modest Genius
3. Calathan
4. Calidum
5. Mamyles
6. Jusdafax
7. Jeois
8. Medeis
9. Masem
10. Colipon
11. SnowFire
12. SeraV
13. Nergaal
14. HAdG
15. FormerIP
16. Donnie Park
17. Banedon
18. Kudzu1
19. Fuzheado

Banedon (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. I want to address Bandeon's points:

1. Being the top level of rowing is not entirely the point(though this races gets far more attention than the Rowing World Championships) As stated before, this is a unique cultural phenomenon followed by millions in many places(not just the UK) (the 270,000 figure is live viewers only).
2. It is not just "local news" and even if it was, that's irrelevant. Very little would be posted if we required "international significance" for what is posted. You could get rid of probably 90% of the ITNR list and a good chunk of ITNC nominations on those grounds. That's why we discourage such objections.
3. As I already stated, the 270,000 figure is for live viewers. How many events are notable enough so that many people want to gather in one place to see it?
4. Yes, it does involve only two universities- two of the oldest and most prestigious in the world. The long tradition of this event is notable enough to be followed by millions around the world.

It also seems to be conceded that this would likely pass ITNC. If it does so, and does so every year- then there is no reason not to list it on ITNR; that's the whole point. The objections given still amount to IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal, as I was quite bothered that this got so much play on the front page of Wikipedia, alongside the featured article on Oxford and Cambridge. In almost every other discussion for front page "In the News" candidates, it has focused on trying to provide a balanced world view with a high level of notability. I'm not sure how we got so far away from those values with this entry on a niche, Anglo-elite boat race. It is completely inconsistent with the standard we use for other headlines. As a partial result of highlighting a "light" story like this, the 2016 Brussels bombing story is now off the front page less than a week after it happened, while there are still active manhunts going on. This does speak to a flaw in our ITN system now: should items just fall off the list in chronological order, or should we use our editorial judgment to keep high profile, active stories on the list while less significant, but newer, "moments" be removed first (eg. election results, legal judgments) -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you would review the prior discussions on this issue, you might learn why it has been listed here. You are welcome to propose the Brussels attacks for Ongoing if you feel they should remain in some form. It is difficult to please everyone; some feel that we have too much turnover in stories, others feel we don't have enough. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose having this conversation for the 4th time in 2 years, Support 31.54.154.160's previous closure of this, Oppose Banedon's reopening, Support a 2 year moraorium on having this discussion anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll second that. This is not a vote, but an evaluation of the merits as they relate to guidelines and policy, to seek consensus. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal - I'm still in favor of removal, since I don't think this has enough international interest to be automatically included every year. Many of the points put forward in favor of this being ITNR seem either irrelevant (being an old event has nothing to do with how important it is) or somewhat misrepresented (while a lot of people watch in person, that is because it is free to watch and takes place in a large city, not because it is of more interest to people than other events). Calathan (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

International interest is not required(and the lack thereof discouraged as an ITNC objection); very little would be posted if it was required. I don't know about you but personally I wouldn't fight that large a crowd unless it is something I really wanted to see, even if the event was free. I'd watch it on TV(which millions do as well). This is a highly notable rowing event, more so that the World Championships, and is a unique cultural phenomenon in the UK. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it should never be posted, but that it shouldn't be ITNR. It would be fine to nominate the event each year at ITNC, but I don't think it reaches to the level of worldwide interest where it should automatically be posted. Calathan (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If this gets nominated and posted every year at ITNC, it should be at ITNR; that's the whole point of ITNR. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But I don't think it would get posted every year. That's the whole point of asking for it to be removed (I would have thought that was obvious, but I guess not). Calathan (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But it does get posted every year, because the article is of decent quality, it attracts a decent readership and it is good for the encyclopedia to cover diverse subjects like rowing on the main page. Of course that may not be your bag, but clearly it appeals to our readers who are actually the people that count here, not you, me or anyone screeching for any particular ITNR position. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal While it may be a long-standing collegiate tradition between two schools, ITNR posting of this is problematic: we have no other collegiate sports on ITRN, and the only "rivalry" ITNR otherwise (that I easily see) is The Ashes, which clearly has recognition beyond just as a tradition between England and Australia. ITNC nomination still is possible, but if we're not going to put up things like the NCAA Basketball tourneys as an ITNR (which generate much more audience and the like), then this should not be either. ---MASEM (t) 15:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  It's odd to see the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge described as "schools". If this competition is unique, are you arguing that it's uniqueness bars it from appearing? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  Okay, yes, they are universities, but my point is that we are not talking about a professional competition, and we are not talking about a championship competition (after a field of contenders have been narrowed down). I could name a number of near-equivalent rivalries (outside of age) in the US in various football and basketball games (Army vs Navy, UT vs T A&M, Ohio State U vs Univ. of Michigan, etc.) all that draw much larger attention but that aren't anywhere close to being championship or professional level games, and would clearly not include these as ITNR. The Ashes is the only other ITNR that is a rivalry between two teams, and those are both teams at the sport's professional level and between teams representing different countries, so it has a bit more weight to it. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  It dates from a time when professional rowing did not exist? So you're slightly comparing apples with oranges? But yes, I agree, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are not countries. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  I appreciate it is a long-standing, traditional event, predating many of the other championships we have on ITNR, but at the same time, how relevant is the event in terms of the overall sporting world, now that there are professional rowing competitions? --MASEM (t) 16:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  I'm suggesting that some sporting events are important because they are outside the realm of professional competition. I'm sure you know the sort of thing I mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  Except the Olympics garner huge worldwide attention, and are national representatives competing against others of the same from other countries; it's not an exclusive match limited to teams from two very specific nations or the like. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  I wasn't really trying to make a direct comparison there. I'm also surprised that there is not more support from US editors given the ever increasing involvement of Americans at many levels. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  And I don't get the bit about "Argentinian, Sudanese or Japanese newspapers" either. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  That would be Banedon's new criterion that ITN items should be covered in Sudan, Argentina and Japan (ironically the Boat Race was more than "covered" in Japan). The same user cannot read either, the viewership is not 270,000, that's the number of people who watch it live (compare that to your Superbowl, your "Go" games etc), so it's becoming apparent that the initial proposal is based in ignorance (innocent, I'm sure). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal I forgot it happened yesterday otherwise i would've got my knives out. I have always been opposed inclusion as in a nutshell; yes it's a British tradition and so is fox hunting, cheese rolling and Page 3 Girls. Also why should this be in ITN/R and what about the Henley Royal Regatta that has a greater history and greater variety of rowers all over the world. That never appeared in ITN, so why should this. If we were to keep in the basis of "frequently featuring Olympic medalists" (like in past proposal) and major scale sports event in the country, we may as well include Macau Grand Prix in ITN/R as it a hunting ground for future F1 drivers (Senna 1983, Schumacher 1990), people in motorsport and in Asia takes it seriously, it's on TV live every year... As with mainstream news; the general public, all they have is basic knowledge of this boat race like "this boat race between two top universities", they don't care about who won or when it happened. Regardless of BBC Sport (that is not that much in depth), it does not have the widespread mainstream support that other sport has regardless if it's been watched by millions on TV, is it in other countries? Do you see ESPN talking about it? Other than random snippets in British news, when was the last time it was in mainstream news, was it in 2012 when somebody swam in front to deliberately disrupt the race. In a nutshell, support removal to save ITN from becoming a joke. Donnie Park (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  Let's not get over-ambitious with one removal. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC) And a change of sponsor might well make for more interesting coxes.

• Just a rationale for removal. Donnie Park (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  One without foundation. This year's race was covered by The New York Times and The Japan Times to name just two non-British sources. Pageviews of the article in ITN hit more than anything else in the section other than Radovan Karadžić. Over a quarter of a million people watch it live and millions on television so claiming that "they don't care about who won or when it happened" is naive bordering on fabrication. Why let the truth get in the way of a good rant, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment this is becoming somewhat tedious. The race is watched by hundreds of thousands live, millions on television, has a history dating back to 1829, features Olympic standard rowers, doesn't prevent other stories from being featured at ITN, gains global coverage (from New York to Tokyo to London) and every few months we have to go through this bizarre debate with a group of "I don't like it, it's snobbish and/or irrelevant" opposers versus a group of "this is why it's suitable, with evidence" supporters. There's a worrying trend at ITN that if it's not as big as the Superbowl, it doesn't count. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - It is pointless and baffling to try and compare the venerable Boat Race with collegiate sports in other countries, because quite frankly this is beyond comparison. This is not the same thing as NCAA college football - nowhere near close. As for the articles themselves, TRM has worked tirelessly and admirably to bring the Boat Race articles up to GA and FA status. They are more than worthy of ITN inclusion.--WaltCip (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the kind words WaltCip, I guess this won't go away until the anti-brigade get their way. There's a shedload more hatred towards posting this than, say, the result of the Benin election. Which, frankly, is super odd. But no-one is required to be consistent or act rationally I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WaltCip, while you don't specifically say so, I get the impression that you think the Boat Race is more deserving of inclusion than the NCAA college football championship game. However, I see it the opposite, where the college football championship is the culmination of a whole season involving many hundreds of games between over 100 teams, with millions of viewers in person and many hundreds of millions more on TV, and with nigh-endless news coverage for months on end. If college football (and college basketball, which gets similar amounts of interest and coverage), which are such big things in the United States, often can't even pass at ITNC, why should a single event between just two teams of rowers be ITNR? Perhaps the bar for being ITNR should be set at the level that something which is a big event in one country but not that big elsewhere should be included. However, it certainly seems like the bar isn't there based on the outcome for college football and basketball. If we want to "be consistent and act rationally", then it seems like the Boat Race shouldn't be ITNR (and no, the fact that your country is older than some others and its sporting events have been around for a long time doesn't make them more important than other countries events). Calathan (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the NCAA thing. We have NBA, and other European basketball events. That's enough. Rowing? Hello? Anything? And why not? If we have chess/badminton/gaelic football etc, rowing seems perfectly reasonable. And this event is known the world over, as I've already said even the might New York Times reports on the result of this race. It's big in the UK and big enough outside the UK to warrant a place without this continual jingoistic/anti-jingoistic ranting month-in, month-out continual re-proposing until we're all worn down enough to delist it. Frankly, for the grief this gets, I'm in favour of removing it because the various ignorance and determination of the opposition isn't worth the effort to rebut any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You have the British Rowing Championships. Why does the Boat Race get primacy over that? Notice, this question is NOT to say it should be removed, but if you can put the context of the popularity and historical importance of events like that into perspective, you should be able to understand the NCAA Tournament. --Jayron32 19:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but arguing to remove this because the NCAA tournament isn't included is pathetic (and is that the same NCAA that was founded a mere 110 years after the Boat Race?). Nominate it for inclusion. You know precisely why the Boat Race is here, you have seen the multiple discussions keeping it at ITNR and yet the vendetta continues to remove it. Baffling, as it's popular with our readers (see the pageviews today and the previous few days for all ITN items freshly posted), and that is the fundamental issue here. With this ITNR we post quality items within minutes of the conclusion of the race and tens of thousands of readers look at it. It drops off ITN in a matter of days. Where is the problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, to me your comments consistently come off as hypocritical. I admit I don't know much about the Boat Race or understand why it is popular in the UK. I get that you don't know much about NCAA football and basketball or understand why they are popular in the US. That makes sense, given that I'm from the US and you're from the UK. However, you seem to think that your ignorance of the NCAA sports is a valid reason to exclude them from ITN, but our ignorance of the Boat Race makes us jingoistic idiots. To me your positions seem absurd. I'm willing to trust you that the Boat Race is a really big thing where you live, so why won't you trust us that NCAA football and basketball are really big things in the US? Or at least the very least, if you aren't willing to trust us that they are big things here, then please stop treating our ignorance as if it somehow makes us idiots while simultaneously treating your ignorance as a valid reason things shouldn't be at ITN. As an aside, I want to mention that I think that there are some real cultural differences at play here in why some of the arguments being made aren't convincing to other people. I keep seeing people pointing out that the Boat Race is old, and that constantly baffles me. When I see that, I keep thinking "why does that matter?" Likewise, being a competition between two elite universities comes off to me as a negative. I think that to an American, saying something is old makes it seem stuffy or non-relevant, and saying something is a competition between two prestigious schools makes it seem preppy and elitist (as an aside to the aside, I keep finding myself writing "schools", but I mean no disrespect in that . . . it is just normal in American English to refer to universities as "schools" or "colleges"). To an American, I think the important things would be how many people care about it in the here and now, and how much of an impact it has on people. It certainly seems to me from the comments posted here that being old and prestigious are important qualities to someone British, and to you the Boat Race being old and between prestigious universities are reasons to care about it. I think to an American, those things really aren't as important, which is why I think your arguments keep failing to persuade some of us. In particular, saying that something is a competition between two specific universities goes against the everyman appeal that I think people in the US want, and makes us wonder why anyone not at those universities would care. I just wanted to point out that I think these cultural differences exist, and I think that may be a good part of the reason why people (e.g., The Rambling Man) keep making arguments that seem baffling to me, yet they seem equally baffled at why we aren't convinced by those arguements. Calathan (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And your comments come off as ignorant and prejudiced. But whatever. This is becoming US Wikipedia, as evidenced more and more by the rejection of anything non-American. I give up, frankly. I will continue to generate content that the readers want to (and actually do) read, and I will continue to hope that some of us will fight to see it on the main page amongst college basketball and other such detritus. I will continue to hope that once some of you realise this is English language Wikipedia' and not American Wikipedia we can actually create content which looks outside the extremities of the US. That Americans are "baffled" by contests that are nearly two centuries old is of no surprise to me at all. In fact, I quite enjoy the fact that there remains an ignorance that is so obvious and well-publicised outside of the country that we're all sitting here wondering if any of you even have passports, or know what to do with them. Enough of my vitriol, this is pointless, you and your compatriots will get your way and we'll end up with American Wikipedia in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is pointless and baffling to try and compare the venerable Boat Race with collegiate sports in other countries, because quite frankly this is beyond comparison. - Because you say so? Uhh, okay. This is not the same thing as NCAA college football - nowhere near close. - Obviously not. But I also fail to see what you aim to achieve by comparing apples and oranges, or how this stands as a defence of this entry. As for the articles themselves, TRM has worked tirelessly and admirably to bring the Boat Race articles up to GA and FA status. They are more than worthy of ITN inclusion. - I wasn't aware of the ITN criteria that says "single editor tirelesly working on a pet topic = ITNR. Could you direct me to that portion of the guideline, Walt?

  I think there are arguments to keep it - I was surprised to see Sportsnet in Canada covered it. On tape delay, I believe. First time I've seen it thus. At the same time, the arguments about this being a singular school rivalry is compelling. I suspect many of the people arguing in support of this would oppose an ITNR for a major NCAA sports rivalry game. The inclusion of this entry is obviously controversial, so it should surprise nobody that controversy follows each year. Resolute 19:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  It's not every year, it's twice a year. There's a vendetta to get this removed. I think what Walt was referring to when it came to the articles themselves was that I have managed to keep them up to scratch so their posting is a formality. As an aside, we get multiple complaints about the staleness of items at ITN, reducing ITNR in number will of course increase the staleness. But that really is an aside. I've also noticed that this year's race article got more hits on its day one of posting than anything other than the Bosnian war criminal. So perhaps it is interesting to our readers who, after all, we are here to serve. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  Take a look at the last time the NCAA basketball was proposed for ITNR (understanding that the last few times that the tourney results were posed at ITNC they were rejected as an individual ITN posting). Look at the vitriol in the statements there, and then compare to what's happening here. The same arguments being used to not promote the NCAA are being used to retain the Boat Race. We should be consistent here. The Boat Race draws millions across the world, great. The NCAA basketball tourney draws millions across the world if not more, and its well noted that it actually costs between $100 million to $1-4 billion in lost productivity due to March Madness, it is that popular. It has every equal right to be an ITNR as the Boat Race, excluding its age, which doesn't seem like a thing to discriminate on if we're talking "things our readers are interested in". If the NCAA basketball tourney shouldn't be an ITNR than neither should the Boat Race. If on the other hand we're worried about low volumes of ITN posts, then we should include both. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  So, for a change, do something productive and propose to include NCAA again. Removing this from spite "just because the NCAA isn't included" is playground. The article draws tens of thousands of people to a "niche" sport, it has a quality article, it has history, it is reported on worldwide. Do you think NCAA is reported on by the BBC for instance? So you really need to step up and do something positive, rather than all gather together like harpies and reduce the quality on the main page, after all that's what this proposal is actually seeking to achieve. P.S. The inclusion of The Boat Race at ITNR was to avoid continual discussions about its notability. So far, we've discussed this four times in two years, which is twice as frequently as the race itself. Absolutely pathetic waste of time and energy. Our dear readers seem more than content to see The Boat Race on the main page, it's just the hysterical former colonials and the anti-establishmentists who seem determined to keep beating the drum, shooting the horse etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  No one arguing removal is making this about the Boat Race being a UK tradition or its national ties. It's simply comparing a college sport to another college sport, and college sports have generally being denied inclusion on ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I am opposed to ITNR more generally - but, assuming that ITNR must stay a part of ITN, then I oppose "The Boat Race" specifically. In my view this is a classic and glaring case of systemic bias, and that, if taken off the main page or judged on a case by case basis, would be of no detriment of the fans of the event but a huge step forward to demonstrating that ITNR sporting is not a place of arbitrary standards. There are some valid arguments for and against keeping this on ITNR, but I am not sure the Boat Race received proper discussion when it was first inserted into the plethora of ITNR sporting activities, making it extremely difficult to remove now simply as a matter of bureaucratic procedure. I would similarly support any proposition to remove any Gaelic sports, Australian football, and Canadian football from ITNR. Colipon+(Talk) 20:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  It's bizarre. Should we remove ITNR altogether? It seems that from your comment that there's little purpose in ensuring that niche sports events which are significant and need coverage be posted. We might as well axe ITNR. I have no issue with that. But you need to be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  P.S. I am not sure the Boat Race received proper discussion when it was first inserted into the plethora of ITNR sporting activities, making it extremely difficult to remove now simply as a matter of bureaucratic procedure not at all - please read carefully the archives were it was added to ITNR and the various attempts to remove it. It's nothing to do with bureaucracy, nor improper discussion. I think your assumptions of bad faith on behalf of the community are ill-founded and insulting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  It was added sometime after 2009 without discussion that I can find, only retained based on a 2014 discussion. I note that the 2009 discussion to add it also included added the various NCAA tourneys as well as equivalent ones in Europe. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal and the perennial discussion - There's obviously some who wants it removed, but do we really need to have this discussion all the bloody time. -- KTC (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Original and second closing statement by User:31.54.154.160: This has been discussed multiple times over the past two years, including here, here and here. A careful assessment concluded it should be added to ITNR, followed by a review, which concluded there are slightly more and better arguments for keep ... and lack of consensus to change would favor status quo, anyway. Repeating the same discussion here when the situation has not changed is a waste of everyone's time. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: This close was unilaterally reopened by the nominator, who made absolutely no attempt either to contact me or request a review elsewhere. The subsequent comments show nothing but a rehashing of the previous discussions. I suggest the nominator stop continuing this unless he or she can provide new evidence that has not already been taken into account. We cannot be creating RFCs every time we find ourselves on the losing side of an existing and recently assessed consensus. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I reopened the discussion, I find the closing and re-closing by the same user inappropriate, also per comments at WP:ANI. No opinion regarding removal from my side. --Tone 07:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As a side note, this discussion is really repetitive but it would be better if some uninvolved closes it. --Tone 07:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    • As I wrote in the ANI discussion I think there's not much need for further discussion because, after all, most arguments on both sides have already been given. Semantics can be argued ad infinitum, but the core arguments are already there. What's left is a judgment call. I think it's best if an experienced, uninvolved editor assess the consensus in both this discussion and the previous three discussions if necessary, and make a decision on whether this item should be included in ITNR. If the decision is to keep the item, said editor should also decide if there should be a moratorium on further discussion for a set period of time, lest this discussion happen again next year. Banedon (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• What an astonishing and baffling waste of time this is turning out to be. And you know why? Because even if Banedon succeeds on his crusade here, we'll have this very same protracted and nasty conversation next Easter. The whole point of the listing on ITNR which has repeatedly been found to have argued consensus, is to avoid that. So, make haste and get this closed, so we can start it all over again in a year's time. And then we can carry on improving other articles instead of prolonging this vacuous debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per long-standing consensus. The OP's motion to remove is based on several false premises, AFAICT, such as viewership numbers in the hundreds of thousands (false), lack of international coverage (false) and a misunderstanding of the level of competition this event represents. GoldenRing (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal I lack my own knowledge in this area, so I do have to defer to those who are in the know, and they seem to indicate this does have important cultural implications. Also, I can't imagine refusing to post this given sufficient article quality, as it has been posted almost every year for several years. --Jayron32 11:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal (just to be sure, since we're now all about vote counting) nothing has changed, the item has been posted regularly and (although I say so myself) always of a decent quality. Pageviews show that this event is of interest to our readers, even if some of our editors think they know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Added] Proposal: Include women's events when simultaneous with men's (and vice versa)

Above, people suggested making the presence of a men's sport event automatically qualify the female event too. This, it was argued, would put undue weight on some obscure events - especially because in some cases, the women's events are amateur while the men's are professional, or the women's events are orders of magnitude smaller. Therefore, I'm suggesting a tighter proposal: when a men's event and women's event are held as part of the same competition, both qualify. This is already an explicit rule for tennis and badminton, and it seems to be de facto practice for marathons; in addition, we would now post the women's Boat Race, both men's and ladies' overall at the FIS Alpine Ski World Cup, and both the men's and women's road races at UCI Road World Championships. This only applies where there is an explicitly gendered award, of course - we wouldn't post the most successful male and female drivers in a Formula 1 race, for instance, because the award is only "best driver". Smurrayinchester 11:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think we already do this in most cases where the two competitions are part of the same event(including with The Boat Race this year now that the races are on the same day in the same location, despite concerns that the notability of both is not equivalent). I'm not sure we need to write it down but I don't oppose doing so. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I'm also not opposed so long as the article quality of both articles is sufficient for the main page. --Jayron32 12:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I think this works out pretty well, especially with the specification that it has to be during the same competition. The Boat Race is, as mentioned, would be a prime example as it shows such events can be worked into the blurb pretty easily. From what I'm gathering this affects a relatively small pool of articles so it shouldn't be terribly invasive. I also think having this written down within the rules somewhere will help solidify this and avoid most complaints (but probably not all) about notability issues. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Not opposed to this. As pointed out, it will draw attention to articles that otherwise would not receive such attention due to systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• What everyone else has said for a few extra words, while keeping in mind the quality argument made by Jayron, this can make a nice difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• In principle this is a fine idea, but is there a way to feature it without having a blurb that is implying the two events are of the same caliber (i.e. when the prize pool is different)? While systematic bias exists, I think overcompensating does the same thing in the opposite direction. Nergaal (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess using some kind of guideline like this one, I think equal prize pool championships should be both featured, but there should be some sort of tiering for the non-"equal" sports. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how useful that is. The ones where the prize money differs are almost all separate tournaments. The exception is the Red Bull Cliff Diving World Series, which isn't ITN/R, but if it was, I think posting the men's and women's results would still be justified (in the 2016 one, men and women mostly compete in the same events, but the men's season has a few more dives and a couple of men-only events at the start of the season). Smurrayinchester 08:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think the original idea is fine (emphasizing Jayron's caveat), no need to compare prize pools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with most of the above comments. It takes minimal space and effort to include and would match the style of several other events. Regarding the above concern from Nergaal, may I say that I think perhaps we should begin moving past the idea that posting something to ITN implies a value judgement or "worthiness" of a news item. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that as long as the events are near simultaneous, both men's and women's sides should be documented as ITN --MASEM (t) 15:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with original proposal with the usual caveats on articles quality. -- KTC (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Ok, it's clear that we are happy with the idea proposed above. But it needs to be enshrined in words that we can point at to help our admins and other editors when making decisions on blurbs and what to post hereinafter. As the proposer, I'd like to invite Smurrayinchester to propose some words we can add to the ITN instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Easiest would be to change the current text to "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (where applicable) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified." Smurrayinchester 08:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been about a week, so I've added this text (with "where applicable" changed to "when simultaneous" for clarity") - if anyone has any changes to the wording, feel free to revert and discuss here. Smurrayinchester 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Proposal: Add NCAA basketball championship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The arguments for having this item on ITNR are very similar to that for having The Boat Race on ITNR. Both are events involving only students of certain universities. Both are high (albeit not top) level competitions. Both attract mass media coverage. Both have national cultural significance. We discussed The Boat Race just a couple of sections above this one, and since that discussion resulted The Boat Race remaining on ITNR I don't see why this should not be on ITNR as well.

Previous discussions on this graciously linked by Muboshgu on the ITNC nomination: [5] [6] [7] [8]

For the record I am on a personal level opposed to both items being on ITNR; however since consensus was for The Boat Race to remain on ITNR then I believe for consistency the NCAA basketball championship should also be on ITNR. Banedon (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we should focus on the active nom at ITN/C before this. But I wholeheartedly support this being added to ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be better to wait until after this year's dust settles - a productive discussion will be easier when there isn't a current item on the line. Do you me is we close this for now, @Banedon:? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.