Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed Addition: Domestic Football Leagues

Currently, following Bayern Munich's successes in the Bundesliga, there has been a nomination made at WP:ITN/C to have it posted to the main page. This has conjured debate about the prominence of the domestic leagues, and whether or not they merit a place at ITN/R. At present, only the Premier League is listed, and this is a proposal to expand that. I feel that club football is underrepresented at ITN, and this proposal seeks to remedy this, as well as clarifying some things regarding how European club football operates, as there appears to be confusion about this.

However, given the sheer number of domestic leagues, posting some could cause an inundation of nominations, so we should define significance and importance here in this discussion. For the purposes of debate, I shall consider only the four most prominent leagues, as determined by their respective UEFA coefficients (given that these are calibrated based on performance in Europe, rather than prestige or importance, this is not ideal, but it is the fairest metric to apply in avoiding bias). At present, these leagues are:

I feel that there is an argument to be made that all of, or at least a subset of, these leagues warrant a place at ITN/R given their significance. Football/Soccer is the largest and most popular sport in the world, and is of major interest to our readership. As such, placing them on the main page fulfills the primary aim of ITN - To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. As such, I feel that here is an appropriate forum to discuss the place of the aforementioned leagues with respect to ITN, and determine if any/all of them are to be added. Obviously, article quality would be crucial, but even then, articles on football tend to be respectable and in depth, particularly for major leagues, thanks to WikiProject Football, and given the plethora of media coverage are easy to cite.

N.B. - regarding the UEFA Champions League, a common misconception that arises at ITN is that this is a higher level league (a fault of the name, perhaps), and supersedes the domestic leagues, in a similar manner to how the Playoffs supersede the Divisions in the NFL. However, this is not the case - the Champions League, as well as the Europa League (another level down), are run by UEFA, a separate organisation, and take place during the domestic football season. They run concurrently, and are completely separate tournaments. The domestic leagues have prestige, history and prowess all on their own, and ultimately account for the bulk of a club's time during the season.
It is further worth noting that these leagues draw to a close around the same time as each other every year, opening the possibility for combined blurbs if space is required at ITN. Not crucial, and such blurbs have a tendency to be unwieldy, but worth noting nonetheless.

Let the much-needed discussion commence, I suppose. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - for what it is worth, I would support the accession of all three other leagues to ITN/R, but would be satisfied to see any of them make it, as all are noteworthy, significant contests. In descending order of significance, I would personally consider them, to the audience of en.wiki, PL, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, but that is just my two cents. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought it had become established practice that an item pass at ITN/C before it goes up to ITN/R. Also, why only these four countries? Of the 55 UEFA members, whose national championships are "notable"? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, La Liga, for starters, has been posted on multiple occasions, and the four leagues picked have been determined by UEFA to be the most important (hence they are given four Champions League spots apiece), and would have the most prestige at international level. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
If UEFA has indicated in an RS those four are the most notable, then it's a no-brainer. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
As of this press release, additional spaces in the Champions League are given to the four highest ranked leagues, which are the ones listed above, according to this table. The additional significance of this quartet is clear in UEFA's eyes, they are given additional space to compete in UEFA's premier event, and as such are the league which I propose we add. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'm still neutral because I think that sport is already overrepresented, and this isn't SportsPedia, and these events are already covered in the es, de and it wikis, and it stinks of Euro-centrism leaving out important leagues in Brazil and Argentina, instead of having "how odd" screamed at me over and over again, I'll drop it. Open wide for some soccer!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no such requirement. A successful ITNC nomination can help suggest an ITNR, but you can start an ITNR without any ITNC if you can argue why it should be ITNR. --Masem (t) 18:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
And yet, it's been an issue again, and again. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
That's different - if something has been put to ITNC and routinely not posted due to importance (not quality), then that works against its favor for an ITNR. But as you just gave as an example, consensus can also change. --Masem (t) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly right, so lets see consensus at ITN/C, then it'll work in favor of this nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The clock has now started – how long before someone mentions that canoe frenzy in "London, England", TBR? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"canoe frenzy" I LOL'd. Thanks TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I propose "TRM's Law" as a corollary to Godwin's Law for topics at ITN. The longer the discussion goes on for, the more likely the Boat Race will come up. --Masem (t) 21:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
For such things TRM supports, the boat race. For things TRM opposes, gun violence in America. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem as I see it is that sport is inherently spirited. More than any other topic, editors actively seek out that criteria that reinforces their pre-conceived notion of any event's relevance. It takes little effort to find editors expounding and rejecting the same rationale as the topic movies from college basketball to college canoe frenzies. This will never be solved until we settle on some objective criteria. GCG (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • To me, ITN seems more suited to one-time events such as League Cups than to the results of a months-long season such as the EPL or Bundesliga. There's an inevitable minor bias towards events in English-speaking countries, and I'm fine with the status quo of only listing the EPL and Champions League on ITN/R. If there's a consensus against that, I'd support either adding La Liga and Bundesliga (Serie A and Ligue 1 feel less critical to me), or removing the EPL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Support I've changed my mind. If we include the American NCAA football championship, we should include all of these leagues, and probably the French and Russian leagues as well (assuming there aren't practical issues with them all being decided at the same time). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • We quite infamously DON'T include the American NCAA football championship, and no one is even suggesting adding the French and Russian leagues. Argentina should be next on this particular slippery slope. GCG (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. List of professional sports leagues by revenue says these are the top 4 non-American sports leagues in the World. That's for all sports and not just football. Revenue and public interest are closely related. They are also the best football leagues in the World (Brazil might interfere, hard to compare due to lack of matches). Europe has the best leagues because they can buy the best players. UEFA coefficient#Current ranking shows these 4 leagues are well ahead of number 5. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support as long we are clear that these four are picked because the UEFA has clearly identified them as the four key national tourneys, and thus why we don't need to include the other 30-some, and do not expect to include ITNCs from these other national ones (Barring unique circumstances), then this seems reasonable. I'm worried someone's going to accuse us of bias here, hence that if this is indeed added, we need to be clear about the UEFA's importance in the ITNR text blurb. --Masem (t) 21:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Which would mean what for South America (no true football fan could deny the S.American influence and importance to the game). Where would the Brasilian & Argentinian leagues (the top ones down there) come? The UEFA UK/Italy/Spain/Germany connection is less about quality and more about money. UEFA makes most of its funding from competition broadcast rights. To do that it must have the teams from the most populous and football-watching countries competing in order to justify the cost and make sure bids are high. UEFA also (unsurprisingly) invests the most money in those countries. Its a far more complicated relationship than 'UEFA just thinks they are the best'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support La Liga, EFL and Bundesliga but oppose Serie A. Domestic football is a big deal, dominates the attention of the sports pages and very often becomes front page news for various reasons. It's inherently arbitrary which leagues we make ITN/R and which we don't. Some leagues are clearly bigger deals than others (in terms of attendance, TV audiences, revenue or attracting top talent from other countries), but even then there's no unarguable way of ranking. For me, the list goes La Liga, EFL, Bundesliga, Serie A/Ligue 1 -- and the arbitrary line of ITN/R-ness qualifies the top 3 but that's just my 2 cents.
For what it's worth, I'm relatively satisfied that the Euro-centric nature of this is a reflection of the state of the sport - although South America has many great players, they tend to play for European clubs (for example, see the clubs of the current Brazil squad) --LukeSurl t c 09:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Serie A has more ghits than all the other leagues, I'm not so sure. --QEDK () 07:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm perfectly okay with this, but we need to reopen the discussion on College Football, whose revenue dwarfs these leagues. GCG (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Propose removal then. This is Europedia after all, we can't have something from the United States on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't really care where we draw the line, but we need to apply the same standard to Europe and the US. GCG (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Actually, this is nothing to do with Europe vs the US, this is to do with a global sport which has a truly international audience, including those of us outside Spain, Germany and Italy who actually watch La Liga, Bundesliga and Serie A. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you for making my point for me. ITN policy of course precludes opposing "an item because the event is only relating to a single country," yet this is routinely used to oppose the CF nomination. The other major points are that it's amateur (yet we post amateur boat frenzies, basketball and the Olympics) and that it's second tier; this nom is quite explicitly enshrining three more second tier competitions in ITNR. ghost 12:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Labelling the leagues listed above as "second-tier" would be blasphemous to a large number of football fans. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support adding these 4 leagues' season winners exclusively as ITN/R. --QEDK () 07:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cricket is the 2nd most popular sport in the world, so are we going to do similar ITN/R listing for multiple domestic T20 cricket leagues? I guess not. Moreover, these leagues culminate around the same time which will result in an all-football ITN. Even if it's a combined blurb, it would be too cluttering. Also, why the four most prominent leagues? Why not just three or may be five most prominent leagues? --Uncle Sargam (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Finally a reliable source that ping-pong has a bigger following than hoops. –HTD 14:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Seriously though, the Economist and ESPN have their thoughts about the world's 2nd most popular sport. –HTD 15:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let it stew for a while, and I believe sport is already overrepresented, and this isn't SportsPedia, and these events are already covered in the es, de and it wikis, and it stinks of Euro-centrism leaving out important leagues in Brazil and Argentina. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Not really, we've already noted that all the best players in the whole world play in Europe, and that the best clubs in the world are in Europe and the best football in the world is played in Europe. Even FIFA recognise that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Six members of this years man-city squad were from non-EU countries. I imagine there are a few more footballers than that in all of South America. "We collected the best players, so just ignore the rest of the world." Euro-centric bias at it's finest. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Irrelevant. Many members of the All Blacks are from the Cook Islands, but no-one cares about how well the Cook Islands rugby team are doing. It's not about the origins of the players, it's about the competitions in which they play. It's not "Euro-centric bias at it's (sic) finest", it's about reporting news items that of interest to our readers, and since our readers are interested in the finest football the world can offer, that'd be found in the top four leagues in Europe and nowhere else. Even FIFA agree with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @LaserLegs: - We post the Super Bowl as the elite level of American football, ignoring players in other nations, even when some very talented, Super Bowl-winning players, originate elsewhere - see Sebastian Vollmer for an example. Your rationale could just as easily be applied in this scenario, or for the NBA and Tony Parker, and is ergo redundant. TRM is also correct in his assertions in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It's one point as part of a whole. My point is you want to post five soccer games a year, ALL from the EU ... when there are top leagues fielding top players in South America which are getting no mention. Neither of those statements is true of "American football" or of basketball. Eurocentic bias I'm afraid, plain and simple. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not quite. We want to post the results of the top five association football leagues in the world. There are no better leagues in South America, North America, Asia, Africa, or Australasia. It's fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It’s a fact that elite football is centred on Europe, and these are the four biggest leagues both in terms of history and UEFA coefficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support La Liga, Premier League & Bundesliga but oppose Serie A. Those are the three top leagues in the world and whilst there's no clear dividing line, Serie A isn't the force it used to be. You could argue it's no better than the French or even Dutch leagues. I'm comfortable with three domestic tournaments for the world's most popular sport, but let's not go overboard. Modest Genius talk 10:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • So this would take the number of expected soccer stories per year from 5 [1] to 7 or 8 .... what is enough for "the worlds most popular sport"? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
      • 7-8 seems about right, given that golf, horse racing and rugby all get 4+. I think more than three domestic leagues would be too much, but the other entries are for international or continental competitions. Modest Genius talk 18:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support La Liga and Bundesliga but not Serie A. La Liga, Premier League, and Bundesliga are the three strongest leagues in the world, and as an American I can attest that they are the only three that receive regular television coverage on national TV networks in the United States, which is just one piece of evidence for their global reach. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've seen Serie A on antenna TV in New York City. It might've been Univision, Telemundo or Azteca though (Spanish language channels). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, and would also support Ligue 1 per PrimeHunter. By revenue, these are the #4, #6, #7, #8, and #10 sports leagues in the world right now; and in Europe they're routinely referred to as the "Big Five." We post the winners of every other league in the top 10. There is the danger of regionalism, but there are no other leagues that really compete in terms of revenue. However, I would be willing to add the Copa Libertadores for South American representation, and while I'm currently a weak oppose on the Campeonato Brasileiro, I'd be willing to consider that as well. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC))
"We post the winners of every other league in the top 10." uhmmmm no, we don't actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The remaining five are NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and Formula One. To my knowledge we do post all of those. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh I understand your comment now. In that case, do you have some ref to back your list of "the top 10 sports leagues" --LaserLegs (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It referred to my posting of List of professional sports leagues by revenue. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the thing people seem to be missing is we post American baseball, and Japanese baseball. American Football and Canadian football. Australian Rubgy and some other rugby. We get some regional diversity that way. You want to post five European national leagues, and the FA cup. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Soocer is easily the world's largest sport, so I don't think this would result in an undue number of postings. Having the EPL as the only domestic league is systemic bias, particularly when La Liga is arguably a stronger league (as illustrated by Champions League success in recent years). Neljack (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Removal: All badminton events

Proposal unanimously opposed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2018 (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.

Badminton is a relatively obscure sport that is rarely covered in general sports media. Kaldari (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose if i'd be snarky I'd say it is at-least more popular than darts/and or the boat race. Maybe if by "general sports media" you mean U.S. media it is not popular, however in Asia it is very popular and it is popular in Denmark and England too. "Badminton second to soccer in participation worldwide", second most played sport in India behind cricket etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Galobtter: Thanks for the information. I didn't realize badminton was so big these days. Would you support removing the boat race if I proposed that? Kaldari (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Removing The Boat Race has been proposed and failed several times, please review those discussions before reopening that can of worms. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Yeah, dunno how I'll !vote on that but I definitely don't see it as worth the trouble anyhow Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the merits, as Galobtter states. One person's obscure event is another's important event. We strive to reduce systemic bias and including badminton does that. That said, I don't recall the last time we posted a badminton event. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am concerned that this proposed removal is charged with systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Where I live, baseball is a relatively obscure sport that is rarely covered in general sports media. I would never propose removing all baseball events. (PS: I love baseball, but what I just wrote about its obscurity here is true.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I love how the article page views on individual sports stack up against each other. –HTD 00:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Nine other sports, including massively followed sports such as rowing and Gaelic football, as compared to association football. –HTD 00:32, 20 May 2018 (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.

Proposed addition regarding change of heads of state

We already cover new heads of states by election or by succession where this is not by election, but I would also suggest (based on the current situation around the Spanish PM) that we add succession of a head of state as a result of resignation, impeachment, imprisonment, or other similar route. Maybe this is obvious enough to not be needed per CREEP, but it seems an obvious thing we post (pending article improvements) --Masem (t) 18:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  • The Spanish PM is not the head of state (King Felipe VI of Spain is) but in regards to the issue, I think the entry could be simplified to a "change" in head of state. I'm not sure it is necessary to list the methods of change. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Either way, a change of head of state or head of gov't by a non-standard route for that country like this case seems the type of thing we always post. --Masem (t) 18:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I would agree. Changes in head of government are usually posted as part of a general election(or in an unusual situation as with Spain); there have been rare instances of a PM being changed voluntarily and not due to a scandal/no confidence vote that we have not posted. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment heads of state vs government is too ambiguous, because from country to country that person can be authoritative or a pointless figurehead. I still believe that we should go off List of current heads of state and government and whatever the yellow box is. -LaserLegs (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Question so lets consider your average European democracy. We'll post when the general election for seats in the legislature is done, then post again in a few weeks when a government is formed, then post again when the ruling party loses a vote of no confidence forcing a new election and pushing a caretaker leader? Is that the proposal? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(Added) Economic summits - proposed clarification of posting time

Clear consensus for something that was already obvious to many. Feel free to tweak the wording. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2018 (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.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summits and G7 summits are listed at WP:ITN/R (the G7 rightly so imo, I have no opinion at present about the other), but the listing does not state whether it is the opening or closing that is the event we should be posting. The opening of the 2018 summit was closed with consensus firmly in favour of waiting until the close. The primary argument for this being that we don't know what (if anything) of relevance has happened until that point. I propose that this consensus be carried over to the ITN/R listing, noting there that it is the conclusion which is the recurring event. This would not stop the opening being nominated in the normal manner should it be unusually significant for some reason. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging participants in the G7 nomination discussion: @PineForst282929, LukeSurl, WaltCip, Sca, LaserLegs, The Rambling Man, Ad Orientem, Masem, Muboshgu, Power~enwiki, Lepricavark, Strikerforce, and 331dot: Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Barring exceptional circumstance where we know going into the summit they are going to be deciding on a critical issue or if a major issue is resolved while the summit is ongoing. Barring that, it is what the summit concludes with, if anything, that should be covered by the blurb. --Masem (t) 15:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Lepricavark (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I thought it was obvious, no harm in codifying. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Seems reasonable. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - posting at the conclusion of the conference is apt in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought this was obvious, but given that nomination at the start it's worth codifying. Modest Genius talk 14:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom rationale. Well said. StrikerforceTalk 13:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support seems reasonable. If an exceptional circumstance occurs one year where the converse is more appropriate, this can be dealt with as an IAR item. --LukeSurl t c 13:55, 11 June 2018 (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.

(closed) World cup host selection and ongoing

Thanks to everyone who commented, I didn't expect such a diverse range of opinions so I started separate noms for each. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2018 (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.

The popularity of the FIFA world cup is not in dispute, and recent nominations at ITN/C confirm the following recurring events are notable, and should be listed at ITN/R:

  • Host selection of the FIFA World cup (mens and womens because gender bias is the easiest to fix)
  • Adding the FIFA world cup to ongoing

This would align the FIFA world cup with the Olympics. Original pointy nomination re-worded --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  • It should be noted that this proposal was substantially changed after TRM made this comment. --LukeSurl t c 22:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose pending conclusive evidence that the women's World Cup is actually notable enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The women's world cup is already ITN/R, this is just to add the host city selection (once every 4 years or more, I think we can manage). I didn't propose adding the women's world cup to ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Well, I strongly contend that it should not be ITN/R and we would do well not to compound the error by making the host selection ITN/R. Lepricavark (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. a) Not all host selections will necessarily be like this one. It may occur that hosts will be elected unopposed, in which case it won't be as significant news (merely confirmation of what is already known. b) The hosting of the Men's World Cup is only partly a football story, it's also a significant economic/infrastructure/geopolitics story due to its size, this is not the case for the Women's world cup. c) Announcement of the hosting rights to the Women's World Cup has never been tested at ITN/C and would probably not pass. Overall the status quo is fine. --LukeSurl t c 13:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • As has been noted, the previous host announcement in 2010 was posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support FIFA WC (i.e. not women's) is the biggest sports event behind Summer Olympic by far. It is even ahead of the Winder Olympics in relevance, and sometimes the hosts are picked every 8 years. Having an ITNR every 4 years is not a "high price". Only reason current host pick was under the radar is because the expansion to 48 teams made it prohibitive for bids. Future one will change now that people see that triple bids are ok. Oppose women's, since nobody outside USA cares about it. Nergaal (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Mixed:
    • Support adding men's world cup to ongoing per ITN/R assuming article quality is up to par at the time.
    • Oppose adding women's world cup to ongoing without evidence that it is as at least as big a news event as the men's world cup. The men's world cup is the minimum level of significance required for any single-sport competition to be added to ongoing.
    • Oppose adding men's world cup host selection to ITN/R per Luke Surl's points a and b.
    • Strong oppose adding the women's world cup host selection to ITN/R until it has been posted via ITN/C at least twice. It wasn't even nominated in March 2015. In March 2011 Zimbabwe withdrew their bid to host (which didn't have a chance anyway) leaving Canada as the only bidder. This was not nominated either (and probably wouldn't have been posted even if it had). Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support both Men's events and oppose the women's events. ITNR should only enshrine that which has been established at ITNC (both men's events have been posted last two times), in spite of the precedence of items being added by a consensus of two when no one is looking. ghost 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose while this shows up in the news, it's usually only temporary. This indicates a lack of lasting impact until the event itself. Post the event, not the host selection. Banedon (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was against posting the selection. It has no impact outside of the actual games when they happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2018 (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.

Addition to Ongoing: FIFA world up mens ongoing

The FIFA world cup is already ITN/R for Mens and Womens, this is a proposal to note that the Mens tournament is added to "ongoing". This would align with the Olympics. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Last two world cups were added to ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support considering that the USA will be a perpetual participant from now on, it will receive wide coverage as long as this site will have any relevance. 2012 Olympics got 3.6 billion viewers, while the World Cup in 2014 got 3.2 bn. Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Addition: FIFA world cup mens host city selection

Similar to the olympics host city selection, this is a proposal to add the host selection for the Mens FIFA world cup. The last two were posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support once every 4 or 8 years. Looking at FIFA World Cup hosts, since 2006 host selection have received wide coverage. Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items&oldid=846793055"
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