Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Baseball Classic

The entry for the World Baseball Classic is suffixed by the odd note "or whatever form the tournament takes in years to come." I know almost nothing about the sport, but from reading the article it seems like this was very new when added to ITN/R but has since settled down and established its format. If that is correct I suggest removing the note. Significant changes seem not to be planned at this point, and if they do happen we should assess whether it still belongs on ITN/R at that time, not automatically assume it should regardless of the changes. In case the preceding is unclear, I am not proposing to remove the event from ITN/R (I think it should remain), just the note. I would just boldly do this, but I'm looking for a check from someone who follows the sport just to make sure I haven't misunderstood something. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Baseball editor here. You appear to be right in your assumption. That comment references Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_1#Baseball, which talks about the tournament being a one-time thing, because that short thread is from 2008, and the first WBC was held in 2006. It was indeed held again three years later, in 2009, and then they changed it to be every four years, so it was held again in 2013, and again in 2017. It's expected to be held again in 2021 though there is no definitive announcement of that, or decision to change it. I expect it will remain in existence, though I can't verify the next one will be in 2021 as opposed to a different year. Baseball is no longer an Olympic sport and it's a top priority of the Commissioner of Baseball to expand the game internationally. I think the comment can be dropped, and we can address what to do about the ITN/R item if it doesn't happen again in 2021, for whatever reason (changing schedule, cancellation, etc.). – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the footnote can be dropped. If the tournament changes then we can reassess. Modest Genius talk 11:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both, I've removed the note and added a link to this discussion as another reference for the item's inclusion on the list. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Womens sports

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and I don't feel that strongly about it, but what about a blanket addition of the women's edition of ITNR sports events (or the reverse if it exists). The two things driving this suggestion are:

  • ITN has a significant male bias and this might help fix it up a bit
  • sub-par articles still won't go up, I doubt we'll be inundated

Anyone have any thoughts? I don't feel strongly enough to defend this to the death, but it seemed reasonable to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that not all women top-tier events receive the same coverage, as male equivalents (partly due to general interest and viewership), so this should be decided on case-by-case basis, especially since we already have a good deal of ITNR sports. I think we can post those few events where men and women are roughly equal, such as Women's World Chess Championship. And there was a proposal to add Women's World Chess Championship to ITNR, for which I was sympathetic, but it failed. Brandmeistertalk 09:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
We have tended recently to post women's events when they occur at the same time and place(relatively) as a men's equivalent event.(Wimbeldon, for example) However, if the events occur at different times or different places(NCAA men's Division I tournament, vs. the women's) we judge each individually. I don't believe(could be wrong) we post the WNBA championship because it is far less popular than the NBA(rightfully or wrongly) and occurs at a different time. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion not too long back where it was decided that if men's and women's events happen at the same time and as part of the same event then both (or neither) are on ITN/R. Where the events are separate they are considered independently of each other. Imho this is the correct way to handle things. If you want to see more women's sports at ITN/R then your best bet is to nominate some specific events for inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove: Emmy Awards

Consensus is that this belongs on ITN/R. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
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.

Once again, given demonstrable opposition to posting this in ITN/C, I am putting this up to be removed from ITN/R. It's entertainment industry navel-gazing, viewership is in steady decline, and the Emmys are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the on-demand age. Given the bar we set for ITN/R, there is no reason this should still be given automatic posting consideration.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
While we're at it, should this be removed, retroactively pull the current Emmy Awards listing on ITN as the primary reason given to support its posting was that it was ITN/R.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agnostic on the ITNR listing, Oppose pulling. Being on ITNR isn't a big deal to me (I generally give primacy to article quality in my assessments anyways) but the article was improved to the minimal standards of quality and update before posting. There's no compelling reason to remove it from the main page other than to enforce one's own perosnal view of what the world SHOULD find important (rather than relying on the evidence of what it DOES find important). --Jayron32 13:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As noted during the discussion, as long as the Emmys also are taking in on-demand shows as valid nominees, then they are keeping up with the times (comparatively, when the Emmys refused to include cable networks a decade+change ago, that was a problem, and the Academy was rightfully criticized for that, making them change their rules). The articles have generally be updated though I had to step in to fill in a description of the presentation, but that was not difficult, so it's not like a US Open (tennis) situation where no one is bothering to update.
    This does leave the question of if awards for American television should have ITN significance, and here's where it is tricky. I know Canada has an equivalent, and there's BAFTAS for the UK and I'm sure other nations have similar awards, so why just pick out the US? But we should recognize American television is a dominating media force compared to nearly all other nations. Recognizing the highest honors in that field at ITN seems completely reasonable. If anything I'd argue we should be including the British Academy Television Awards as ITNR as well as British shows also make a significant worldwide impact and so that we're not just limited to the television of one country. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'd have no problem with any similarly widely-viewed awards show also appearing on ITN, so long as the article is of sufficient quality. Media coverage is easy enough to verify, and beyond that, as long as we have a good article, we have met all the requirements (We have a quality article to show readers who have heard about a recent event elsewhere). --Jayron32 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    The only issue with the BAFTA television awards right now is the lack of any type of description of the events, compared to say our most recent Emmy one. It's clearly an aired show, there's 2+ hr on BBC with a host, so it would need to be handled as we expected from the Emmys. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If "entertainment industry navel-gazing" and declining viewership are reasons to pull this from ITNR then we might as well rid of The Oscars too. It's silly to suggest it's irrelevant in the on-demand age when an on-demand show, The Handmaid's Tale, has just walked away with the Outstanding Drama Series award.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The top recognition in the field which gets a decent amount of attention and wide interest. I too am open to other similar events from other countries if their importance and newsworthiness can be demonstrated. I think American TV is picked out because (rightfully or wrongly) it is a media force, as Masem states. Off the top of my head I think a good argument could be made for the BAFTAS. We also already have an Indian film award, don't know if they do a TV one. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This should specifically read as the Primetime Emmy Awards, to distinguish it from the Daytime Emmy Awards, Sports Emmy Awards, International Emmy Awards, or the other separate Emmys ceremonies. Note that many of the other Emmys ceremonies have similar category names. For example, the International Emmys also has categories for Best Comedy and Best Drama. I have thus changed it accordingly.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove self-congratulatory awards that recognize the supposedly "top" TV shows in the US (VEEP!?!?!?). At least the Oscars have a foreign film category. This is a cliquish anachronism with a dwindling audience of no importance outside a dying industry. If the show is noteworthy, it can always be nominated on its own merits. Plus, where is the RfC that established this as an ITNR item? Didn't think so. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The industry is so near death that it picked a streaming only show as its best drama....... 331dot (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)s
@Medeis: If the lack of a formal RfC for adding it was problematic it would have been removed when it was discussed in 2013. It wasn't, so it has consensus to be on the list unless and until this discussion closes with consensus against. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is of interest to our readers, and we are not here to right great wrongs. Nothing has changed since the last RFC which re-affirmed its status as an ITNR entity. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above really. The largest awards ceremony for one of the largest entertainment industries. If you doubt the sway TV holds over Wikipedians, journey over to the Report more often. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2017 (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.

Elections when there is no clear winner

In view of the Jacinda Adern blurb right now, I propose to change the current section on ITNR to:

The results of the elections for head of state:
 *In those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where the head of state is an elected position
 *Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included
[text below]

"Unless there is no clear winner in the election, in which case the formation of a government is the ITNR item". Banedon (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but this proposal wouldn't have affected the NZ election since Ardern isn't a head of state. (I've always thought that the "only heads of state" rule is ridiculous—I guarantee more people care about Angela Merkel than care about Frank-Walter Steinmeier—but it's what we have.) I don't think "don't post the election, post the formation of the government" would be workable, despite superficial appeal; in multiparty democracies the formation of a government can take months (or in some cases years), and "wait for formation of a government" would mean a constant stream of people complaining that Wikipedia was ignoring their country's election. A rule like "post the result of elections, and post the outcome of coalition talks if and only if it results in a change of government" would probably be just about workable. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Iridescent is on the right track, "the results of general elections, including the outcome of coalition talks if and only if they differ from the election outcome"; but I'm unsure we need to write this down. The system worked with NZ; we debated it, and it was posted. This isn't a terribly common occurrence. However, I won't stand in the way of writing it down if that is what is desired. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Iridescent is on the right track, the NZ election was a general election and not an election for the head of state. I think 331dot is also the right track. I believe that ITN should continue to post the results of elections for both (1) heads of state and (2) general elections. I'm a bit confused by 331dot's wording of "the outcome of coalition talks if and only if they differ from the election outcome". Election outcomes are different/separate from coalition talks, so by definition they will differ. Chrisclear (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Typically the party that wins the most seats in the election is in the coalition government, so the outcome of the coalition talks would not differ from the expected outcome of the election. It is unusual for the losing parties (none of which got the most seats) to come together with a coalition of their own to overtake the party that won the most seats. That's what I'm referring to. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an ITNR question however. Do we really want the general elections to be ITNR, and then the formation of a coalition to also be ITNR? Banedon (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I think there is room for both elections to be ITNR and the formation of coalitions where the party with the most seats isn't in the government to be as well. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Is the formation of a coalition ITN/R though? If English had formed the government then I would have been very surprised if a nomination would receive much, if any, support. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Since there are no objections I'm going to amend the relevant section. Banedon (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
    Yet no support at all, and only a couple of days of discussion, and an unclear proposal to start with. I'd leave it alone for now please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Elections are recurring, but disputed elections are not and probably need to be handled case-by-case. pbp 23:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The process worked well enough this time. Whether we post the formation of a coalition should not be decided by ITN/R, but by discussion and consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't see value added by having extra ITN/R items here. The processes are too complicated and varied to be adequately summarised in a one-line rule. Hashing it out on ITN/C seemed to work OK for the NZ case. --LukeSurl t c 08:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should be too prescriptive about this; better to avoid instruction creep. This hasn't really been a problem in the past, and is a rare situation anyway. We can always post the election results and then update the blurb with the government formation if it's a few days later. In the vast majority of cases the government is clear by the time the article has been sufficiently updated to merit posting. If coalition agreement takes longer, a new blurb could be considered on its own merits. Neither of those require any additional wording on ITNR. Modest Genius talk 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hard cases make bad law. We don't need to rewrite a policy every time a case comes along that doesn't fit into what we've already written. We nominate some article. We discuss if the article is good enough and what blurb to use to highlight it. We post the agreed upon blurb. It doesn't need to be that complicated, and we don't need to write into policy every sui generis discussion we have when we get some newsworthy event that doesn't fit into a neat category. --Jayron32 15:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with the points here, but we needn't be so deferential to precedent on ITN/R. This things didn't come down from Mt. Sinai; some of them had a consensus of two whole people. If it's better to use general election or heads of state or heads of government or (ahem) the people that actually run the country, use what works best, precedent be damned. Every nom for ITN/R changes is greeted with "the old way has served us well." I feel like I wandered into The Lottery.GCG (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Application of ITN general requirements to ITNR

I wanted to clarify the application of ITN requirements to ITNR items:

1. ITNR items "have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion" for inclusion at ITN. In evaluating ITNC, "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another." Since we are only considering the quality and not significance of ITNR items, what is the standard for quality? Are we saying ITNR items have a very high level of significance and thus a low quality update would be acceptable? Or are we saying ITNR items have a "neutral" level of significance which will not bear weight on the quality requirement?
2. "Each ITN item contains an emboldened link to an article providing a substantial quantity of directly relevant information." In the case where it is difficult to identify a target article, we might use a table (see the Sakharov nom). In adding one line to a table, are we running contrary to "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient?" GCG (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
To me, quality is based on primarily on "long enough" and sufficient inline sourcing. There might be other issues like WP:PROSELINE or other things that can be edited to fix but not necessary due to a lack of information or sources that I would want to see improved, that unless were completely agregious, I would allow to pass on for posting to ITN.
The Sahkarov nom is an exception to the rule due to the nature of whom won that prize, and can stay as an unwritten rule per IAR . In general, for a singular prize or award, if there is a clear, obvious target (the person(s) or work that won it), then that is expected to be the target and thus improved. For multi-awards in a single nom, eg Oscars or Grammys, then the awards program article for that year should be of sufficient quality. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items&oldid=815167997"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA