Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox

(Closed) Request for Comment: Amateur sporting events[edit]

There is consensus against a blanket exclusion of amatuer sports at ITN. There's a lot more discussion below of what exactly should be at ITN, but that is beyond the purview of this RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.



Should all amateur sporting events be delisted from WP:ITN/R?

  • Option 1: Yes, all amateur sporting events should be delisted from ITN/R.
  • Option 2: No, there exist amateur sporting events that should remain on ITN/R.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey: Amateur sporting events[edit]

  • Option 2. No, there exist some amateur sporting events that should remain on ITN/R. These include events of national importance (such as the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship) and several Olympics-related events. I do not think that removing amateur sporting events as a per se general principle is healthy for ITN, and I think that they need to stand in their own right, but a general principle that removes all amateur sporting events on the basis that they are amateur doesn't seem to be coherent. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 - whether a sporting event is pro, semi-pro, or amateur, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on anything listed at WP:ITN#Purpose. Or in plain English: some important sports events are amateur (Olympics, some college sports), and some unimportant sports events are professional (darts, snooker). There's no correlation between the two. Also, the distinction is artificial. In the real world, the top amateur sportspeople are, in truth, "professional" sportspeople, in the sense that their full-time "job" is the sport, plus there's endorsements and such. Michael Phelps, Simone Biles, etc., are pros in any real sense of the word. I don't think there's any evidence for the notion that sports fans care if a sport is pro or not; they care if it's "big league" or not, and whether it's their "home team" or not. Pro/amateur seems to be a distinction that is popular on Wikipedia but nowhere else IMO. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 clearly because amateur events can be worth posting! Knee-jerk opposition to it because "it's amateur" is just a manifestation of editors' biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 having paid athletes or not shouldn't be a brightline rule, especially if multiple factors are present such as widely covered world-record accomplishments. — xaosflux Talk 19:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 What matters is notability, not amateur status. The distinction between the two is arbitrary anyway, with a lot of "amateurs" being well compensated in ways other than a salary or prize money.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2. While I generally believe professional sports to be more noteworthy and overall more worthy of ITN consideration, this is an overreaction. What we really need re:ITN/R's sports situation is a referendum on each item that could arguably be borderline. The issue really isn't amateur events - for example, The Boat Race, IMO, would not merit posting whether those participating were professionals or not. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2. Some amateur events belong on ITN/R, some do not. There also exist events where the amateur status of some or all athletes is complicated and/or disputed, and events that are unquestionable amateur in nature only. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 - a blanket ban is not helpful, and inclusion should be based on coverage in reliable sources. EpicPupper (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neither option. I would prefer 'no amateur events in sports where professional competition exists'. That would exclude the Oxbridge boat race, all NCAA events etc. but still allow the GAA sports and others that ban professionalism. Modest Genius talk 14:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 and evaluate on a case-by-case basis. My opposition to The Boat Race is predicated on it being a limited competition between the exact same schools every year, effectively making it akin to us posting the results of Michigan-Ohio State every year; the NCAA tournament, GAA, and so on don't suffer from this issue. The Kip (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 Candite eos, etc., except in very rare circumstances which can be evaluated on the day. SN54129 15:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How is "evaluate on the circumstances" not option 2? If this was a choice between saying (almost) all should be included and (almost) all should not be included then your !vote would make sense, but it isn't. It's a choice between "no amateur sports at all" and "no prohibition on amateur sports", your comments indicate you believe amateur sports should be included in some circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That would probably be quidam rather than eos though. SN54129 15:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't speak Latin, and Google translate's "light them up" and "go some" don't help me understand. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion: Amateur sporting events[edit]

  • Rather than doing this piece-by-piece, I think that a RfC on the general principle will provide some clarity going forward. For that reason, I'm starting this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WikiProject Sports has been notified of this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural question – Should there not be some work done to appropriately frame the RFC before it begins, in line with WP:RFCBEFORE? This doesn't seem like a neatly binary question. For example, one could imagine people taking the position that nearly all amateur sporting events should be delisted (all but the Olympics, for instance). Graham (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There has been a good bit of back-and-forth in the discussions above regarding whether or not all amateur events should be removed. There are some people advancing that position as a motivating reason, so I want to have the community weigh in regarding the scope of how that would apply. The closing summary should include some discussion of what we resolve here, but I do expect some people to support Option 1. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, I imagine some people will opt for option 1. But that doesn't mean that this is a binary question best resolved through a binary RFC. I would strongly encourage you to withdraw the RFC and allow for a discussion as to how the RFC is best framed. Graham (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could someone list all the items that would be affected? --Trialpears (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As far as I can tell, this includes the NCAA Division I men's basketball tournamentand NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament, the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, The Boat Race, Women's Boat Race, and various items relating to the olympics and paralympics. Formerly on the list (in recent memory) was the College Football Playoff National Championship, IIRC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that changes to ITN/R will do anything to resolve the systemic issue at play here. ITN is essentially the one place on Wikipedia where content can be published with no reasonable consideration of our content policies, essentially coming down to the personal opinions of editors. If this system was used to decide what content goes on an article, it would be widely criticized. But here it is being used to decide what goes on the main page. This RfC does essentially the same thing, asking what should be published based purely on editors' personal opinions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    However, it's also comedic the frequency that WP:NOTNEWS is cited when the MP section is titled "In the news".—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a philosophical disagreement that's pulling ITN in two different directions. You can believe that highlighting encyclopedic writing covering recent events is not "news" as it would be presented by newspapers or WikiNews. We just blurb the writing we're proud of that has become available because it has been in the news. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Presumably this is spurred by #Remove The Boat Race from ITN/R (above). However, many of the !votes to remove the Boat Race are citing that it's not really an open competition, with two fixed competitors each year. It's not merely because it's not a professional event.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is spurred more generally by the three discussions that we've had on amateur sporting events, including the concluded one on the College Football Playoff National Championship and the ongoing ones on the March Madness and The Boat Race. But it seems like getting this general principle figured out is going to be helpful. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship is an amateur event, as it is literally the premier championship in that entire sport. As far as I can tell ,the only non-professional sports event in ITNR is the Boat Race mens and womens. Thus, I don't see what issue this RfC solves since that conversation is already occurring above. Curbon7 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also don't see the point of posting this on WP:CENT. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What does being the premier championship in a sport have to do with amateur status? Graham (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Stricken, as I didn't realize the GAA entirely was amateur. Curbon7 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some people seem quite confused by the definition of "amateur" sport. The only distinction between "amateur" and "professional" is whether the players get paid or not. By that definition, most competitors in Olympic competition are amateurs. Why, then, do we not strike the Olympics as being "amateur?" Because, of course, it is an important and notable enough sporting competition to handily meet any notability criteria. Why, to address another issue, do we not highlight Ultimate Frisbee or (for pity's sake) so-called "Quidditch" championships? Because by and large, they are not notable enough sporting competitions to meet any notability criteria. And that should be the only distinction at play here: a competition's relative importance, not whether its practitioners get paid to perform, not whether it is the "premier" competition in a particular sport. Ravenswing 06:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove all sporting events per WP:NOTNEWS which deprecates routine coverage of sports. The newspapers contain pages of sports reporting every day but it's formulaic and frivolous as it doesn't really matter which player or team wins such games. As for the amateur/pro distinction, the most relevant issue is WP:NOTPROMOTION. Professional events are, by definition, about money and so are commercial in nature. Promoting PPV events like the Superbowl, Royal Rumble or whatever is just like promoting any TV show or theatrical event. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Removing items per WP:NOTNEWS would remove, er, pretty much the whole of ITN, as most of it is "routine" reporting, even of notable events. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • None of the current blurbs are routine scheduled events. The only blurb that's even close to being routine is the death of Musharraf and my view was that it belonged in RD for that reason. ITN was originally created for the 9-11 event which was quite extraordinary. What seems to have happened is that it has since been captured by sports fans who have padded it full of routine stuff like horse races, darts matches, and dozens of football games. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The problem with those is that there's no equivalent of a World Cup or an Olympics, no single highest level tournament. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The World Heavyweight Champion has long been considered by sportswriters as the baddest man on the planet, those changes should count. Moreso for boxing and MMA. If pro wrestling has a "grandest stage", it's just the main event of WrestleMania, win or lose. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I could certainly see arguments to include UFC/MMA events if a certain title is established as "the" title, but as a pretty big wrestling fan myself - posting pro wrestling results would be akin to posting news about the ending of a TV sitcom, considering the scripted nature. That's not suitable. The Kip (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nearly every single election is a routine scheduled event. Shall we remove those as well? Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My intuition is yes. Election results have always felt...out of place at ITN. As I expanded below, I think ITN blurbs should be 1) Unusual 2) sufficiently important 3) have an interesting article. I think elections and sporting events by default fail the unusual aspect. Not to say they could never be included, but that usually they shouldn't. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The ITN/R position on elections is grotesquely broken. It suggests that the current Elections in Monaco is of unquestionable significance while the recent 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election was not. We should follow the sources on this in an evidence-based manner, not an arbitrary and unreliable rule. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with you about Monaco -- less than 8,000 people were even eligible to vote in that election -- but that should be a whole separate discussion. Zagalejo (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So where do you say we set this arbitrary population cutoff for elections, then? The Kip (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Monegasque elections were to a national parliament; we posted US House and Senate elections too. Meanwhile, the Speaker, albeit important within the USA, is neither head of state nor head of government here, and thereby is a sub-national thing that shouldn't be posted. If it were, there'd be unquestionable accusations of American-bias, as it's not like we post the elections for the head of parliament in say, Italy or Japan. The Kip (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There it is.
And anyways, if we were to entirely remove "routine events" (including sports, elections, and awards shows, as others have argued) it would effectively be leaving ITN as a slightly upgraded DYK section of deaths, disasters, and the occasional scientific curiosity. The Kip (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The notion of amateurism is an arbitrary standard. What we should be looking at is how prevalent an event is in the news on an annual basis; do lots of high quality news sources cover it every time it comes around so that we expect our readers to already know about it before coming here, and do we expect a quality article to be able to direct readers to every year. If we check all of those boxes, then I see no reason to remove something because it fits in some arbitrary category, or doesn't fit into some arbitrary category. --Jayron32 15:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We want to avoid trying to classify disparate topics by comparing viewership or amount if coverage, least we descend into just covering pop culture and US/UK politics. Within the same field, viewership can be used to determine relative importance uf it is not easily established by other means (eg why World Cup is featured but not the US soccer league). Yes, the big amateur events like NCAA basketball or the BCS draw numbers much higher than some professional events, but there are higher ranked professional events in these fields already including some with more global significance. Masem (t) 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's quite simple. If you don't want to post celebrity gossip in the ITN box, don't. There's literally nothing that says we have to; insofar as we are going to cover major sporting events however, the only reasonable metric for those events is level of coverage; any other thing is just an arbitrary and random criteria that has nothing to do with appropriateness of posting at ITN. If we're going to make amateurism a disqualifier, thats as purely arbitrary as "we don't post events that are played on Tuesdays". ITN should be about recognizing what people are likely hearing about in the news, and then directing them to Wikipedia articles on that topic. We don't get to decide, for ourselves, what topics people are already hearing about. That's mostly out of our control. ITN doesn't make the news, it reflects it. If sports are newsy enough (and I'm also not saying they are or aren't in this conversation, just that if they ARE going to be posted), then the notion of whether or not athletes get paid for competing is not a great way of making the distinction. If sports are going to be posted, we need to assess whether or not our readers are likely to be seeking more information about those sports or not. Level of coverage of those sports is the best way to do that. Now, we can also choose to treat sports like celebrity gossip; we don't post "who's dating whom" type news, regardless of how widespread the coverage is; which is a consensus we reached a long time ago. If we want to treat sports like that, we could if we reached that consensus. We currently do post sports championships, however, and if we're going to post them, we might as well use a metric which serves our readers best. --Jayron32 14:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As soon as you start catering to the media's or readers' interests instead of considering that we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, we no longer have any control over preventing the systematic bias towards US/UK topics, which is not what ITN nor the main page should be. The main page and its section should be a broad swatch of topics across all manners of disciplines and across different regions and nations, as best as we possible can, to prevent the systematic bias from creeping in. And that means at times we are going to be including events that, say, to an average US citizen, has zero impact on them (such as elections in small countries), but represent significant events from a world stage. That's why we are purposely selective and ignore the amount of coverage or popularity or views as opposed to the reasonable importance of the event within its field and region. Masem (t) 03:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, it's not a quantitative thing, for me. I'm not looking for counting how much coverage something has, just merely evidence that it is in the news, which is to say, is this something we expect people to have heard about recently. That's the purpose of ITN, after all, is to, and I quote, "The "In the news" (ITN) section on the Main Page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest" (bold mine). Your proposal that we don't assess "wide interest" in any way is interesting, but I am afraid it reflects neither the letter of the stated purpose of ITN, nor does it reflect the way ITN operates in practice. If you would like to expressly refuse to cover events which have a wide interest, that's a discussion for another time, but your comment does not seem relevant given that "wide interest" is exactly the sort of thing that ITN is literally built upon. There are other sections of the main page designed to advertise articles about topics which are essentially unknown, or don't have a wide interest, but wide interest is currently a sine qua non for ITN. After all, at Wikipedia we don't enforce our own views on what the world is supposed to be like, instead we're supposed to reflect what currently exists in the world. If an event is widely reported, if it is significant because of the type of reporting devoted to it (which is to say, main page serious reporting and not celebrity gossip), then it's hard to argue against it not meeting the express purpose of ITN. Unless you're just using ITN to try to change the culture at large, which again, isn't something we usually do. --Jayron32 18:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Seems disruptive to have this RFC going on at the same time as the other two. If the consensus is to remove the boat race up above and this finds no consensus to remove amateur events, what happens? 2603:3005:42DF:4000:75D1:4404:4889:EACF (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    People may want to remove it for other reasons. --Jayron32 15:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is the only RfC currently on this page... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The presence or absence of the "RfC template" is a fairly weak argument there, #Remove_The_Boat_Race_from_ITN/R and #Verify_status_of_NCAA_Basketball_for_ITN/R are just above, overlap with this, and you participated in them so are obviously aware. — xaosflux Talk 13:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see how that is a contradiction, given that anyone would agree that the Olympics are more important than the Boat Race. It would only have resulted in a contradiction if there was no consensus to remove the Boat Race but consensus to remove all amateur sporting events. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My position falls closer to Andrew's: we should *not* include sports content by default. I.e. the default is exclusion, and we only include such events if they are sufficiently important, unusual, and interesting. The purpose of ITN is not to catalogue news events, but rather to highlight unusual and sufficiently important pieces of news that have interesting articles. That is not to say a sports blurb could never make it to ITN, but that most shouldn't. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I certainly see the argument to remove less-popular sports events (such as the Boat Race, Handball, Darts, and so on - seriously, these events receive little coverage even in the nations they're supposedly popular in), but it feels like absolute absurdity for users such as Andrew to argue that events such as the Super Bowl, World Cup, Premier League, IPL Final, AFL Grand Final, etc, with widespread popularity both domestically and/or globally, should be ignored entirely because they're "routine." The Kip (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Photo RDs - Yes or no?[edit]

Although Andrew's belly-aching on the Raquel Welch entry was somewhat tiresome, there was a valid point raised; it would seem to me that we do not have any sort of process as to whether an image can be associated with a recent death. WP:ITN's current guidelines state as follows:

  • The picture must be of a person or event mentioned in a blurb. The person or event is notated with a parenthetical comment (pictured). (bolded mine)

A recent death is not a blurb. WP:ITNRD is silent on whether RDs can have images and under what circumstances. And in all the years I've been at ITN, I've never seen a photo RD that doesn't immediately get taken down after complaints.

I'd sure like to put something in the WP:ITN guidelines that outlines whether we use a photo RD and when. What's everybody's feeling on this? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think an RD is more or less a blurb that implies "Jimmy Carter has died" (for example). In such cases, a photo seems as appropriate as one in a blurb which explicitly says "Former American president Jimmy Carter dies at 108". We should get a feeling for when it fits by the nature of the nom, same as we can smell a potential blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the line could read, The picture must be of a person or event notated with the parenthetical comment "(pictured)". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC) One could also change "a person or event" to "something" or something, since a snapshot is only a "snapshot" of time, not quite the "event" an animated meteorological GIF is. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking as the person who once posted a photo RD on the main page (blimey, was it really six years ago?) and was roundly slapped down for it, I think it does need a discussion rather than someone just trying it again. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need to state that should the current picture become stale or that none of the latest blurbs have a good picture, than an RD image can be used. But I would think this should be handled as an IAR process outside of stating that RD images can be used. Masem (t) 21:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd be happy with occasional photo RDs if we move from blurbing deaths to just RDs for all (again). I'm leaning more and more to not being a fan of blurbing even the most notable deaths, perhaps I'm getting old and grumpy. Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Somewhere back in the mists of time (I've not looked for when), I think proposed that a picture of the most recent RD (with a suitable picture) could be used iff there are exactly zero current blurbs with suitable pictures. I was and am opposed photo RDs in other circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kirk Douglas It was done for the Kirk Douglas RD, but it might have been as much as an IAR to remove Trump's pic.—Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We also did it for Chris Cornell, which I believe is the discussion that Black Kite was referring to. Yeah, a huge fuss was kicked up by one or two editors and the photo RD was pulled thereafter, because how dare we replace Hassan Rouhani's image on the ITN template. In the words of one of the participants: This discussion is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Mr. Cornell does not belong in the featured position and Mr. Rouhani clearly does. I think you've gone crazy. What lovely and cordial discourse we have on ITN/C sometimes. For what it's worth, I get so f**king pissed off whenever people claim that some people and events are more important than others in terms of image and blurb placement on the ITN template. I thought it'd be relatively clear that we do things in terms of chronological order, but I guess the fact that ITN is side-by-side with WP:TFA doesn't help matters any. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The image on the ITN template should always be for the most recent blurb we have a suitable photo for. That is objective and avoids any and all debate about who or what is more or less important. We already have two tiers of death entry - blurbs and RDs - which produce enough heat when there are disagreements over a blurb nomination, and I see absolutely no justification for adding a third level (RD+image) which will add even more heat for no benefit to the encyclopaedia. This is why I said that if there is ever a time when there are no blurbs with suitable photographs then the most recent RD could have an image (and it would be strictly the most recent only, regardless of who that is - beloved US basketball star, British supermodel, obscure-in-the-Anglosphere Ghanaian poet or third-rate South African soap actor and paedophile. If they are the most recent RD with a free image then it's their picture - no discussion, no subjective my-nomination-is-better-than-your-nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In my vision of ITN, Photo RD would replace Blurb as the top RD tier, not complement it. Picturing a favourite would be the sincerest form of melodramatic flattery. Blurbs about people would still exist, but they'd be for newsworthy, interesting and well-documented deeds, not merely expiring. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would oppose removing death blurbs because there are some deaths that are in themselves newsworthy, either through the manner of death or through the reaction to it. I don't think we get it right every time, but I do think we get it right more often than we get it wrong and removing death blurbs all together would be a move in the wrong direction. If we could leave all forms of flattery and melodrama (whether combined or separate) elsewhere then ITN would be a much better place. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, when death is a narrative, a blurb which includes the victim is fine, and we might even want to picture that person as the main character. What I mean by "RD tier" and could have made clearer is that it only applies to RD type noms, featuring one notable person with a job description and age. These are separate from current events which happen to feature a dead celebrity alongside police, helicopters, international diamond smugglers or whatever. If I ran this zoo, all RDs would be the ones actually getting a reaction in the news and, one tier up, the true faces of the fields, fully frontally featured. The ones whose articles are just good enough and have a verifiable death date would stay in Deaths in 2023 with the rest of the normal notable people. All that explained, though, I realize my utopia would still seem like a dystopia to those alternatively inclined. Anyway, I'll try to write more clearly after this settles, however it goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If the people involved at ITN want to do photo RD’s, failing to do so for Welch was a major missed opportunity. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There were two supporters (40%) at Billy Two Rivers' nom, too. Sometimes we take our shots, they land and what we're hitting just doesn't flinch. It's like those weak and powerless dreams people sometimes have, but here in the waking virtual world. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, but like, that's why we're having this discussion now, since people keep bringing that particular one up. Either way, our purpose wouldn't be to do photo RDs of people just on the basis of physical attractiveness, even if they've built a career around it. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. One of the reasons WP:ITNRD is so streamlined is because one does not argue over notability, importance etc. I think that move of removing importance-check, introduced sometime back, was the best one (in my subjective opinion, of course) in the recent history of WP:ITN. Reintroducing a subjective criteria for adding a photo RD can become a backdoor method for reintroducing importance criterion and get this group back into a mode of bickering. I would be up for a photo-RD for any of the RDs having an image of a) high quality / main page levels of image quality, b) adequate licensing that would allow for use on main page. If those two criteria are met, the article should be eligible for photo RD if nominated. I would suggest a bot to rotate through the images in a predefined time interval. Ktin (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Deal. Most of the time, it's the important/famous/major figures who get a decent photo uploaded, anyway. I've planted three seeds among the latest eligible crop, not to be pointy (or put the horse before the cart, to be folksy), but to see what grows "organically". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given the last few RDs that have been suggested for photo RDs, I am going to suggest that the person be public-famous (someone like Raquel Welch) or that the photograph is of interest to draw a reader's eye (eg the one for Simone Segouin). The others may have photos for their articles, but they lack recognition and are not that interesting to look at that, to just fill space in the ITN box, aren't the types of photos we do want to include if we are including RD photos. --Masem (t) 13:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If photo RDs are to become a thing, they need to go through an RFC first, because the ITN process has never included them. Personally I would oppose, we don't usually lack for images from the available blurbs, and introducing vague criteria such as "public-famous" is only going to lead to more acrimony and bickering.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember me? 14 days!
  • Yes The picture is most important part of ITN as it is "worth a thousand words". The ITN picture should therefore be changed every day to avoid giving undue weight to one subject and to keep ITN looking fresh. For example, the current picture of a landslide in Brazil is now on its third day. And sometimes we run a picture of some person for as much as two weeks and that is ridiculous when every other main page section changes its picture every day.
But pictures can be difficult to find for ITN because of the requirement for it to be a free image. Free images are especially difficult for breaking news because the event is so recent. If we use RD images too then the pool of pictures is greater. We will then be more able to choose a picture of good quality rather than having to scratch and scrape to find anything at all.
Using RD pictures would also be a good way to highlight the RDs. As there are so many RDs, they tend to flash by as a stream of names on the RD ticker and this seems inadequate. Other language editions make RD into a full section with its own picture and a short description for each subject. That would be even better.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Given that this one will need a proposal / Rfc of some form if the idea needs to be taken forward, I would recommend that someone with the ability and the time, submit this one as a proposal. The proposal should have details on the implementation. It should draw a balance -- can not have a significant portion of the homepage become an obituaries page. The team developing the iOS app mentioned once that they feared that adding RDs to the iOS app would risk the app becoming unappealing. While I do not fully-agree with that, I think there might be some merit to that line of thinking. The proposal should also include details around rotation. Also, I would say this should be tied to a bot rather than admins manually doing this. And, repeating myself, this should not become a backdoor to introduce "significance" / "importance" as a determining factor. If we go with this idea, all RDs that are nominated and that has a qualifying image (good quality, adequate licensing for homepage) should be eligible. I look forward to the proposal. Ktin (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calabria in Italy.svg
  • I use the iOS app regularly and have been a beta-tester. FYI:
  1. the app currently ignores RD altogether (and Ongoing)
  2. the app only shows something for ITN when there's a new blurb. It leaves out the older blurbs though you can click through to list them.
  3. it makes its own decision about images. So, for example, yesterday's blurb about the shipwreck showed an image of Calabria (right). Except that, bizarrely, it only shows a top slice of the picture which doesn't work in that case. A fail.
  4. it didn't show any ITN for the previous four days because there were no new blurbs on those days. Another fail.
  5. The app shows the 5 top read articles every day and that generally works better as each of them usually has an image and they provide a reasonable variety. Today, for example, the top read was Tommy Fury with his picture -- a boxer, which ITN never shows.
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. My comment was less an evaluation of the iOS app, but was more for a comment that the team there had given for why they did not feature RDs in their feed (ties with #1 from your note above). This might be some sort of a consideration as you think of a picture for the RDs. Irrespective, a solid proposal should be built-out, if this one needs to proceed. Ktin (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WP:ITNPICT As it hasn't come up here yet, I'll repeat my comment from a recent RD nom that I posted: Per WP:ITNPICT: The picture should be for the uppermost blurb. It may be for a lower blurb if no eligible picture is available for a higher blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure I understand this comment. Isn't this precisely what this thread seeks to understand the project's view on, and potentially amend if consensus emerges? What does linking to WP:ITNPICT here seek to achieve? Ktin (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The thread began with an apparent statement that WP:ITN didn't already ...outlines whether we use a photo RD... If we add nothing, ITN is already quite clear on the matter. Of course, WP:CCC. —Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just re-read the statement from @WaltCip. Reads alright to me. Ktin (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note as with all other ITN guidelines, it says "should" and "may", and not "must" and "only". This is where there may be confusion as to whether photo RDs are allowable, as well as whether a recent death entry counts as a blurb. This is why I'm seeking to establish a consensus. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Based on everyday discussions, as well as Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths#Blurbs for recent deaths, it should be clear that an RD entry is not a blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed. Claiming we don't have a prior consensus on this issue is absurd. Consensus can change, and anyone is free to make the case for such change, but attempting to do so by denying the previous consensus on the matter is not a good look.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew's latest contention is that we should ignore WP:COMMONNAME for Robert Blake unless we also post either a blurb or a picture, because Blake's stage name was (to Andrew's culture reference-frame) commonplace. I have no strong opinions on photo RDs, but I do think that we should stick to both the current general RD policy and COMMONNAME. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Andrew says a lot of things that no one pays attention to. We don't need to take his idiosyncratic proposals seriously. In fact, ignoring him as though he said nothing at all is probably the best response anyone could have. --Jayron32 15:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Couldn't agree more. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I appreciate them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Cyclone Freddy update[edit]

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Blurb has rolled off and cyclone itself has dissipated, no need for further discussion. The Kip (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 wasn't sure where to post this. Cyclone Freddy was posted to ITN for its death toll (now up to 29). It has also become the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record. I suggest the blurb be updated to something like:

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose such trivia. If people want to learn more about the storm, they are quite allowed to click the link to learn such facts. It is not necessary for the blurb to do so. --Jayron32 18:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A notable record people will learn about when they click the link. It is not necessary to include the information in the blurb, IMHO. Blurbs exist for the sole purpose of giving people links to click. They can learn about your little factoid, and thousands more like it, by reading the whole article. --Jayron32 18:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a good record and thanks for bringing it to my attention. But ITN is primarily preoccupied with spreading word of Death when it comes to documenting nature or celebrating celebrities. Talk of duration, wind speed or major figures' birthdays isn't just extraneous to this entrenched and morbid purpose, but directly counterimaginative. And where counterimagination pops up, counterproductivity is never far behind. Shifting the focus just so only seems like the perfectly reasonable thing to do to those already so inclined, remember, and the best idea in the world can only go so far in a democratic forum if it's generally unpopular. If you must carry on regardless, see WP:ERRORS. But don't say I didn't warn you. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you both for the insight, you’re right, it’s more of a breaking news thing among a niche interest group, not worldwide breaking news. Withdrawing. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't withdraw on my account. Other people may have a different perspective. I'm not that important around here. Certainly no more important than anyone else. --Jayron32 13:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't want to brag, but I'm pretty sure he's withdrawing from me. I can be very dissuasive, you know. Hell, sometimes it just happens by accident while I'm trying to be persuasive. Whatever I do, though, it's not to my credit. Everything is predetermined and I am but another moving part (seriously). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This aspect is attracting coverage in mainstream media such as the Washington Post. But the record is still being evaluated – the WMO is assembling an expert committee to consider it. "World record or not, Freddy will remain in any case an exceptional phenomenon for the history of the South-West Indian Ocean on many aspects: longevity, distance covered, remarkable maximum intensity, accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) amount, impact on inhabited lands ..." As this is quite exceptional, the blurb should highlight this. I suggest the following. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think ITN generally considers incremental records noteworthy enough to justify posting, but I would certainly support merely updating a blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Potential removal of March Madness from ITN/R[edit]

Following recent consensus that the College Football Playoff National Championship should NOT be added to WP:ITN/R, I think that what we should do is remove March Madness from ITN/R completely, while audience in CFB is higher than CBB, I don't think both are necessary options to add to ITN/R and due to the fact that they're more less known than the NFL or NBA worldwide. NBA has a lot of international talent like Luka Doncic and Nikola Jokic while college basketball are mostly born in America. As I said, there's no point in adding March Madness in the ITN section each year. 2600:1700:31BA:9410:9CE6:94D8:E140:7B1E (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sincere question from a non-American: why? GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sincere answer from a non-American: This seems to be more popular than the NBA Finals to Americans themselves. The NBA does not play on the day of the final, if that means something.
Also, until the "open era" of basketball, the NCAA tournament was the highest-level tournament in the the U.S. recognized by FIBA. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait You'll gain more traction in the fall. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I assume the goal is to ensure that this doesn't get posted this year. That means it has to be now, not the fall. It would quite ridiculous if we fail to post the football final and then carry on posting the basketball one.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If that is the goal, the shot should have been taken last mid-September. I don't know who first said "you snooze, you lose", but he or she was right. Some say "there's always next year", but we'll see. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Suggest we close this as no consensus was found for removal just last month. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. Definitely not ITNR worthy. The football Playoff is more important, and we've already determined that those are not ITNR. And the Boat Race was removed recently too. There's no reason at all why the basketball college event should get a free pass.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great, the OTHERSTUFF arguments have started. This one is the opposite of past consensus that the basketball tournament is noteworthy and the football one isnt. I've resisted commenting here until now. This was just debated and closed, why are we doing this again? We will be nominating the championship winner in April as we do every year. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why is the basketball one "notable" (in an ITN/R context) while the football one isn't? In terms of interest and ratings, they're at best equal. It makes zero sense to me to keep this. We've been consistently removing college events from ITN/R lately, so this one is really a last outlier and it should be chopped before it is shooed in in early April.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We removed one event with fixed competitors (with non-diverse crews). —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think they're both sufficiently noteworthy to have on ITN/R. I'm just saying that the consensus at ITN has been that the basketball tourney is and the football one isn't. This event isn't an outlier, it's one of the biggest annual sporting events in the U.S., on par with the others. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The recent RFC at the top of this page found no consensus to remove events from ITN/R simply because they are college or amateur. Each event should be judged on its own merits. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove - No need to close this quite so hastily. The last discussion wasn't a formal removal discussion, and my reasons for removing then apply the same here. If it is our view that college or amateur sports are not considered the top level of competition in a sport, then this item cannot be permitted on ITN/R. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You may not have intended it to be a formal discussion but it certainly turned into one, with standard bolded Keep/Remove !votes (link). Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove It's no longer ITN/R worthy. Also past discussion cannot preclude new consensus for removal. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How is it not ITNR-worthy? The Kip (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Either we have amateur competitions in ITN/R or we don't. Given the ones that we've removed recently, I don't see any particular reason to be picking and choosing merely because one has a larger TV audience than another. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, not at all. It says so above at #Request for Comment: Amateur sporting events. Smh. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am aware of that discussion; my comment was merely my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An opinion that was ruled against in an RFC four days ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am quite aware of that. However, if my opinion is disbarred by that RfC because of the criteria I used, I am quite willing to change my rationale to "I don't believe this event is important enough to qualify for ITN/R". Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and SNOW close We literally just had this discussion last month and there was no consensus. Doing this as “revenge” for the Boat Race is absurd. The Kip (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion last month was not a formal proposal and no one saw it as such, as you would note the near absence of votes. Also, bear in mind that we consider the quality of arguments not the count of votes, so you folks voting SNOW are not helping your cause. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 98#Verify status of NCAA Basketball for ITN/R - "the near absence of votes," there were 10 votes of about 15-18 replies and it ended in no consensus. In fact, your own opinion was the nonsensical argument to remove it due to our removal of The Boat Race, which, besides having a wholly different nature than the NCAA tournament, did achieve consensus for removal. The Kip (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the personal attack. Nonsensical, Christ. Countless editors have pointed out the incongruity of this. But sure, if you don't agree, it's nonsensical. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good old appeal to the stone... or is that an appeal to the snow? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove because we need consistency. If The Boat Race doesn't merit inclusion because it's an amateur competition, then the same should be the case for this league. It's simple as that. Whether it attracts higher audience is completely irrelevant (the number of people watching a television broadcast of the 2022 final was nothing more than a regular football match involving one of the strongest clubs in a domestic league). The biggest paradox, however, is that the WNBA Finals are not on ITN/R, but the women's NCAA league is.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's perhaps the most nonsensical argument I've ever heard. By your logic, the finals of World Chase Tag should be included because it's a professional league and other professional leagues are included, or we shouldn't post the Nobel Prizes because we don't post People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive. Just because one thing is amateur and another thing is amateur doesn't mean they're of the same level of notability, news coverage, or impact.
    Also, WE JUST HAD THIS SAME DISCUSSION LAST MONTH. This whole thing is beyond absurd. Kicking222 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The biggest paradox, however, is that the WNBA Finals are not on ITN/R, but the women's NCAA league is" Not a paradox at all. Per WP:ITNSPORTS, Entries which refer to events where men's and women's events are concurrent (unless otherwise specified) are generally posted as a combined blurb. Incidentally, the NCAA women's championship draws ~4M viewers.[2] —Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Kicking222: I'm talking about the most popular sports in the world. Football and basketball are, whereas parkour is not even near. And please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. @Bagumba: I know that's the reason for the fallacy, but it's in no way a justification for it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't follow, what is the alleged fallacy? —Bagumba (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WNBA is the top-flight competition in women's basketball. Isn't it?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see. That's the paradox for non-Americans: that non-professional competition for college (i.e. university) sports can be as or more popular than its professional counterpart. For example, the NCAA men's title games generally have more viewers than an NBA Finals game.[3]—Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We don't post items based chiefly on popularity. This is the English Wikipedia with readers and editors from all over the world, and we tend to use standards that are globally applicable and mutually comparable. If we divide the world into English-speaking zones so that different criteria apply because of the local preferences, then there's nothing that could prevent The Boat Race from being removed as it really is more popular and traditionally more significant than professional rowing competitions in the UK. It's interesting how things are changing here: firstly, The Boat Race was an ITN/R item; then, the NCAA was added with arguments drawn from the comparison to The Boat Race; and finally, The Boat Race gets removed because it's an amateur competition, but the NCAA stays because it's more popular for Americans than professional competitions. This is not how an encyclopedia should be built.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You lost me on "popularity", when earlier you told Kicking222 that you were talking about the most popular sports in the world. I was merely informing you that the WNBA might not be as "top-flight" as you possibly believe, merely because it is a professional league. —Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It depends on the context. When comparing different sports, popularity is measured through the global presence, the number of people practicing the sport, the ability to attract wealthy sponsors and other similar measures; but when comparing two competitions within a sport, then we come down to popularity as measured through the size of the audiences. As for the top-flight part, WNBA is indeed top-flight when it comes to overall quality. You’ll have very hard time to find reliable sources that the players in the women’s NCAA are more skilled than those in the WNBA and that the games they play are assessed better. There are maybe more interesting games in the women’s NCAA (this may be true because the WNBA to me is really boring without the excitement the NBA offers), which contributes to its elevated popularity above WNBA, but that doesn’t make it less “top-flight” (unless you mean top-flight with regards to popularity).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...but when comparing two competitions within a sport, then we come down to popularity as measured through the size of the audiences: Then I'm not sure why you brought up "top-flight" to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ... because, as stated above, I don't think that popularity measured through the size of the audience is the right criterion. A similar argument can be made for inclusion of the FA Cup, EFL Cup and even the EFL Championship play-offs because their finals set records in viewership in the UK every year that are not matched in the Premier League. We have to draw a line somewhere and adopt globally applicable criteria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Boat Race was removed as it's a fixed competition between two schools every year. March Madness is not. Please quit this nonsensical argument. The Kip (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That’s absolutely not true. If you carefully take a look at that discussion, you’ll find out that it wasn’t the case. Yes, it was mentioned that it’s a race between two fixed teams every year, but it wasn’t the dominant argument for removal. Tho majority made arguments that it’s an amateur competition and not top-flight in the sport, which triggered the discussion to verify NCAA’s status on ITN/R immediately below it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove - The arguments to remove make sense to me. Non-professional sporting events should be pulled from ITN/R. Jusdafax (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was an RFC less than a month ago that concluded the exact opposite. The Kip (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If a discussion concluded to keep it less than a month ago, it doesn’t mean that the consensus cannot change. To prevent this from happening, the closer had to impose a moratorium.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Consensus doesn’t take a month to change without significant events happening. To attempt to do so would reek of effectively being a sore loser because one’s opinion ended up not the consensus one. The Kip (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That would be true only if the discussion were open for the same people who participated in the previous one. However, it's possible that some editors didn't notice that discussion or didn't have enough time to contribute and therefore failed to take part in it. I'm an example of someone who didn't participate in that discussion. That being said, arguing about procedural closure just because a group of people discussed the same matter in the recent past doesn't hold.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I think it unlikely that the consensus regarding all non-professional sporting events will have changed in the past month (my opinion certainly hasn't), that doesn't mean anything regarding whether any specific non-professional sporting event has or does not have consensus, indeed from memory evaluating each on their own merits was the consensus of the general discussion.
    While @Jusdafax's second sentence is a (presumably) valid statement of their opinion, it doesn't hold much weight as it is contrary to the recent consensus. Their first sentence however does speak (loosely) to the arguments regarding this specific event and so the !vote should not be completely ignored by whoever closes this discussion. (FWIW I don't currently have an opinion regarding March Madness). Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To elaborate in response to the courtesty ping, INT/R is an advisory list, and does not guarantee blurb inclusion, since all blurbs require consensus.A look at the current list shows it is dominated by sporting events, not news. Many are or were specific to one country, like The Boat Race which I and others successfully !voted to remove. I recognise the difference between a static event and a multi-week college tournament, but feel INT/R is seriously bloated with sports and that most if not all of the sporting events should be delisted, as they can be !voted on individually. Since I, like Kiril Simeonovski did not notice the previous discussion, I did not participate. In the final analysis, sports fans by definition have strong views. Since consensus among ITN participants here to just remove all sports completely from the list, which would save countless hours of passionate debate, is unlikely at present, then in my view trimming the list as possible seems the best course. I hope this clarifies my !voting rationale, and would deeply prefer not to participate in this particular discussion further. Best Wishes and Happy Equinox! Jusdafax (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...it is dominated by sporting events, not news. Most newspapers have sports, sometimes on the front page (for those with hard copies or tablet reader version). —Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Most news events are not regular occurrences. Besides elections, and guess what else is in ITN/R? nableezy - 18:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The arguments about the Boat Race are so over the top I dont get how anybody is making them. Having the Boat Race here would not be similar to having March Madness on ITN/R, it is similar to having Notre Dame vs Michigan on ITN/R. Just one figure shows how wildly out of touch those comparisons are. March Madness revenue: 1.1 Billion USD. TBR revenue? 16.7 million USD. The coverage of the two is wildly different as well, with coverage of the tournament, of the lost productivity, of the chase for a perfect bracket. All that said I dont really care here, but the if the Boat Race does not qualify than neither should March Madness is saying if since I did not make it to the NBA then neither should Michael Jordan have made it. nableezy - 17:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure if I speak for everyone here, but just my two cents: I believe this is more important than the Boat Race, and arguments against this cannot be sustained in the world where TBR was on ITN/R. However, now that TBR has been removed, we can entertain these arguments without being hypocritical. It doesn't mean it has to be removed, but arguments are more valid in this context. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, you can argue against including March Madness. But that is independent of the Boat Race. It simply is not in the same realm of event in terms of participation, amount of coverage, impact on the economy both in terms of revenue generated and productivity lost, television ratings, enrollment of universities involved, basically any metric besides number of years it has existed. nableezy - 04:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I think its a bit silly to support removing this because of The Boat Race being removed. March Madness does seem in my opinion like an event important enough to support posting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - March Madness and the Boat Race are on entirely different planes of existence when it comes to popularity, impact, and financials. March Madness very much meets the ITN benchmark of events with wide interest + the bullet points at our purpose, and should be posted every year (quality dependent). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Trump arrest[edit]

Can be nominated if it happens. Stephen 06:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

It’s likely that Trump will be arrested Tuesday. [4] This would be unprecedented. Jehochman Talk 20:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But when it happens, and if there's a suitable article or update, we can discuss at ITN/C. No point speculating today.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trump also said that he'd be annointed president in March 2021 August 2021 May2022 September 2022. Tuesday will come, and Tuesday will go. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not forget the international arrest warrants by Iran and Iraq alleging mass murder are also as active as they can be against a guy with diplomatic immunity. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, Trump is probably right, because he likely spouted off in anger about the negotiations the DA had with his lawyers to arrange for his arraignment. The rich get special privileges when they're arrested. Here's a video showing the discrepancy. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought the court of public opinion ruled he was lying about being rich. Maybe I'm misremembering something. In any case, he probably won't be bayoneted in the ass like Khaddafi, on account of his extraprivileged status an American commander, so that's...good? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He may be lying when he says that his net worth is TEN BILLION DOLLARS, but that doesn't mean he's broke. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. I still believe in a middle class between the broke and rich. But I'm Canadian, where pretty much everyone is arrested kindly, still learning how New York City rolls. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=1146143956"