Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

[Removed] Removal proposal: Toronto International Film Festival

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 can't seem to find any substantive evidence of the consensus by which this was added to ITNR. A quick search shows we posted a story about this in 2012 (the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival article) and in 2010 (similar year award article) but not since (unless we posted some other article). We have eight film related ITNRs, is this one worthy of inclusion alongside Oscars, BAFTAs, Berlin, Venice, Cannes etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Its article states that it is referred to as "second only to Cannes" and "most influential fall film festival". I haven't yet read up on the other festivals, but this one seems important. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an important film festival. I would rather remove the Berlin film festival and the two Indian film awards (and add the Sundance festival instead). 87.154.211.142 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Remove, as 331dot said, it is "second to". We don't post awards second only to Nobel prizes, so why should we do it with films? Nergaal (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Remove. We don't need four different film festivals, and film is overrepresented anyway. This festival seems to be of interest to those in the industry only - a view that is backed up by the lack of attention & posting in recent years. Modest Genius ^talk 12:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Remove I would like the "keepers" to provide evidence that this localised film festival really is second only to the first- or second-most notable European film award festival. Or, per Nergaal, how many of these "second to" film awards do we need at ITNR? We can re-visit this should it be nominated at ITNC in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I won't lose any sleep if this is removed from the list, but the article cites Variety for the "second only to Cannes" claim and cites Time Magazine as claiming it has "grown from its place as the most influential fall film festival to the most influential film festival, period." 331dot (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Remove The which film festival? Oh... that one. Hmmm. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - how one can claim with a straight face that film is overrepresented at ITN/R is beyond me. If anything is overrepresented it is sports. Anyway...this is festival is not really second to Cannes, because the two are very different festival. Cannes = European and international arthouse, Toronto = big quality productions. 93.215.94.140 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  Not one of the "big three" though, so more suited to ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  The Big Three are very different from TIFF (or Sundance and Tribeca), it's like comparing the Nobel to the Alternative Nobel (Right Livelihood Award). 93.215.95.55 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, this can easily stand on its own at ITNC should there be any consensus to post it, given that it's not been up for the last couple of years, it's clear there's no real interest in it at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Remove: Not posted since 2012 means it shouldn't be ITN/R. That doesn't preclude nominating notable outcomes at ITN/C. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - TIFF is the top film festival in North America. It's where many Hollywood films have their premiere, and where numerous distribution and production deals are made for the biggest Hollywood hits. Many "remove" voters seem to be quite uninformed about its importance. -Zanhe (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Remove - Important or not, "People's Choice Award" does not reach the same level as "Best" awards. Also, as a popularity contest, it is not politics, like elections. Many movies haven't reached ITN standards of significance lately. The fact that the annual ceremonies haven't been posted indicates lack of some interest. Still, no prejudice to individually nominate festivals in ITNC. George Ho (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Remove Reluctantly agree. It's not on par with Cannes, etc (it's not in the top "league" of festivals per the FIAPF). Obviously if it's a slow news day/week, then (article quality permitting) it can be nominated/posted. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Shall I or someone else remove it right away? The consensus seems in favor of removing it now. George Ho (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Change proposal: All changes to the head of government

This is a restart of the Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 17#.5bClosed.5d All changes to the head of government discussion that was closed due to being stalled.

Change

Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits. If election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted.

to

* The succession of a head of government.

Rationale:

It is not logical that the succession of powerless (and internationally unknown) heads of state like the President of Germany (would you have known his name?) or the the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is listed at ITNR, but the succession of the Prime Minister of Australia or the Chancellor of Germany or the Prime Minister of Luxembourg (who has a lot of veto power in the EU) is not.

Elizabeth II is head of state of more than 8% (!) of all countries in the world without having real power in any of these countries, and in Europe alone I'm counting 8 additional kings/queens/princes who are head of state.

Among the G7 countries, 2 countries have pretty powerless heads of state (Germany, Italy) and 3 countries with a powerless king/queen as head of state. France is the only G7 country not sending the head of government.

When looking at the 28 EU countries, the most powerful position is in 3 countries the head of state, in 24 countries the head of government, and in 1 country a person who is both.

Unless there is a clear victory, immediately after the general election it is often not clear which parties will form a government. A month is pretty normal for smooth negotiations which parties will be part of the new government and for them to agree on the terms of the government, and until that point you might not even know whether there will be a change in the head of government. In Belgium it took in recent years once 196 days and once over 500 days after the general election to form a government.

There can be a different ruling party without general elections. When the biggest party of the new coalition is not the same as the biggest party of the old coalition, the result is a new head of government from a different party. This is how Helmut Kohl became chancellor of Germany, and it is even more common in countries with 6-9 parties in parliament and 3-6 parties in government (yes, six different parties forming a government together is nothing strange in some countries).

Or there can be a new head of government from the same party due to death/illness/scandal/voluntary retirement or a rebellion inside the party (like the one in Australia that was recently posted to ITN).

Note that not every general election results in a change in the head of government, and that a change of the coalition with the same head of government (e.g. Angela Merkel did this after both the 2009 and 2013 elections) would not result in an ITN posting for the head of government by the changed rule (the election is still posted due to the existing rule for general elections).

LoveToLondon (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think this can of worms needed to be re-opened- but if a change in head of government does not pass ITNC(such as the Georgian PM being discussed), why should it be on ITNR? 331dot (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed, no need. Another waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Everything you argue about the Prime Minister of Georgia could equally be said about the President of Georgia, but he is magically ITNR.
• Regarding coverage in English language media (if that is what you consider to matter), I am not even sure whether the ITNR succession of the President of Germany (noone creates more coverage than the actual success of the Prime Minister of Georgia (here in Europe Georgia actually matters due to its conflict with Russia).
• Why is the succcession of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg (no power at all in a country with half a million people) ITNR, but the Prime Minister of his country (who actually has all power) is not ITNR?
• The Prince of Liechtenstein actually has some powers - in a country with 1% of the population of Georgia. His succession is ITNR.
• Feel free to suggest any threshold for ITNR (e.g. population), but at least in most Western democracies the current ITNR rules don't make any sense. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The best piece of advice I could offer here, considering this is a re-run of a stale and disinteresting first attempt: WP:TLDR. My arguments about the PM of Georgia are based on his not being in the news, his article not being visited frequently, I've made no mention of ITNR at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@LoveToLondon: It is important to understand that being on the ITNR list is not a guarantee of posting; if factors do not warrant it, such as a lack of news coverage or poor article quality(both of which may be the case for "unknown" heads of state or those from small countries), it will not be posted. I would add that some sort of way to narrow down which heads of state(and elections) are posted(by population, economy, etc.) has been proposed many times, almost to the point of being a perennial proposal, but never obtained consensus. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That's wrong - the only point of ITNR is actually that the importance of a news can no longer be questioned by claiming things like a lack of news coverage (the introduction section of ITNR makes that pretty clear). Article quality is an unrelated issue. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid not; being on the ITNR list only means that the merits of the item being posted are not in dispute. If an item on the list does not get news coverage, it will not be posted even if ITNR. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong. ITNR means the importance is asserted, and the only other ITN criteria is article quality. The ITNR content guideline states that explicitely. If you think an item listed at ITNR does not get enough news coverage, you can always suggest the removal from ITNR here. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: How frequently is the article of the President of Georgia (whose succession is ITNR) visited? LoveToLondon (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost as infrequently. I would oppose that too, but it's ITNR. We will never repeat never find an objective bright line to draw I'm afraid, this discussion, like the last, is a waste of community time and effort, but never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Your point is that the fresh ITN discussion when there will be a new Prime Minister of Georgia in a few days will be a much better use of community time and effort than trying to find a general consensus here? LoveToLondon (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My point is that you tried this once, it gained zilch interest, no support at all, so hey, let's do it all again. The new PM of Georgia may be nominated, it may not be, I'll get my crystal balls shiny and ready. In the meantime, focus on improving Wikipedia rather than entrenching it in subjective bureaucracy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I envy that you have so much spare time that you can afford to discuss the same issue 20 times each year instead of settling it by finding a general consensus. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

But that's just it, we don't, and if we do, that's part and parcel of the general theme of Wikipedia. If you don't like active discussion, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is also problematic that the results of elections are always ITNR (XYZ party, led by John Public, gets most votes in the election), but an actual government change caused by an election (after one month of coalition negotiations Jim Private of the smaller ABC party becomes new Prime Minister; outgoing Prime Minister John Public of opposition party XYZ party retires from politics) is not. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• One is free to nominate the conclusion of such negotiations at ITNC. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Quite, that issue is not an ITNR issue by any means. Anything can be nominated at ITNC, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Contrary to arguments by TRM and 331, importance in politics is not the same as popularity in politics. Too bad "interests" is interpreted poorly, causing the chance of the Georgian PM story to be posted. The consensus policy is not well interpreted in some cases. We can do something about the policy. If not, then remove the "head of state government" thing without prejudice. George Ho (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  Not at all, this is about what is interesting to our readers. There are hundreds of Wikipedias, we don't need to cover ever change of every minor head of state on our main page if there's not a consensus to do so. Or are you going to threaten me? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  Not a threat. We can simply either discuss the consensus policy there or remove it. But don't worry; we can still individually nominate those related stories, even when they are not part of ITNR. George Ho (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  Not "you'll be sorry"? There's nothing here to discuss, this is a non-discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  Can't you just simply vote with bolded words? I see you're not favoring changes. Retain or remove? George Ho (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  This isn't a vote, and if you think it is, you're more out of touch than I had feared. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  As is, the current wording of the item makes the item itself less than necessary and not deserving to be listed. St Vincent elections was posted for several hours until newer stories pushed it out. However, St Vincent and the Grenadines is a group of small islands. If it hadn't been part of ITNR, it wouldn't have been posted in the first place. However, that isn't the case thanks to the latest Georgian PM nomination. --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• What about change of party in a top 25% (or so) goverments by population. A sizeable number of those new heads of governments would also be heads of state anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  As I said above, a bright line on a subjective % is not functional. And why would population be the only indicator of significance? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  Here is a link to all the prior ideas to somehow weed out elections of smaller countries(top 10 by population, all G20 countries, etc.) and none has ever gained consensus, and as TRM states above, likely never will. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support LoveToLondon's arguments are persuasive and the opposers have signally failed to rebut them. Vague claims about a "waste of time" or a "can of worms" are worthless and should hold no weight in assessing consensus. Nobody has answered the fundamental point that it is irrational to have changes in powerless heads of state as ITN/R when changes in powerful heads of government aren't. Most countries in the world are parliamentary democracies where the head of government is the most powerful figure; the current rules completely fail to reflect this reality. Neljack (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Changes in head of government are generally posted upon the result of an election, and rarely do they change outside of that. When they do, there is no reason ITNC cannot be used. Even in parliamentary democracies the head of state at least technically has some sort of power(even if not in practice or by convention only). Heads of state represent their nation to the world and its people; it's also a chance for every nation to get an ITN posting, whereas heads of government of smaller countries could be rejected on the grounds it is a small country with little power/influence. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Further, given the last discussion which generated little interest, and prior discussions about weeding out undesired elections/changes in head of state that has never and will never achieve consensus, it is not a "vague claim" that this is a can of worms. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Which small countries have great amount of power and influence besides the Vatican City, Belgium, and Luxembourg? --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the definition of "small country" appears to be purely subjective. The definition of "great amount of power and influence" appears to be purely subjective. How do we define objective inclusion criteria (or exclusions) that are so inherently subjective? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to 331"." because s/he said changes to head of government from small countries with very little backbone may not intrigue people. --George Ho (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but the questions I've posed need to be answered. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait for 331's responses then. George Ho (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I was actually asking you the question. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you want a response to; I didn't say anything about VC, Belgium, or Luxembourg. That said, I'm also interested in your responses to TRM's questions. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the question was rhetorical, and I didn't mean to insult you or anything. You said that governmental changes in small countries with very little power don't seem interesting. Actually, they have potential. We shouldn't exclude all countries like that. Too bad consensus said no to Georgian PM. --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't insulted, just confused. I didn't say they don't seem interesting, I said that they could be rejected as having little power/influence. If this encyclopedia was limited to politics, I would find such things very interesting. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference anyway? The current state of the item would make the item itself unnecessary, especially when some nominations can be rejected on... bias grounds? Any recurring event can be nominated, even when not being part of ITNR. George Ho (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose change The reason we announce election results is that it means there will be a change of power in that country, even if the same persons/party are elected again, and there is a change in world politics. In countries where there are merely decorative heads of state/PMs/etc. their succession is not going to influence the world politics to any great degree. As such, they should not be given the near-automatic pass ITNR assures. It is better to treat those cases as one-off ITNCs where there may be a larger than normal influence. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What about keeping or removing the item, Masem? George Ho (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We're not talking about "keeping or removing the item". Just in case you missed the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We can also allow that unless you are gonna ban further such thing... Wait, maybe I can file ANI against you for trying to violate consensus rights if you do so. --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I said "oppose change", meaning the status quo is fine. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Masem, that makes no sense. "Merely decorative" heads of state are already on ITN/R, and heads of government are never "merely decorative" - the essence of the position is that they lead the government. I defy you to point to any country which has a head of government that is comparably powerless to ceremonial heads of state. Neljack (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Pak Pong-ju is technically the head of government of North Korea, according to List of current heads of state and government, but I doubt he has much power. Even in Russia Dmitry Medvedev is nominally the head of government, but Putin has all the power. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Kazahkstan also technically has a PM, but the President has the power(again, according to the list page). 331dot (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] Removal proposal: Consumer Electronics Show

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.

---

Curiously, the 2016 edition opens today, so I was looking at nominating it. However, the notes at ITNR clearly state "For each of these events, the ITN blurb should link to the specific article for that year's meeting" As far as I could tell, the very poor article Consumer Electronics Show has no links to any articles that are specific to each year's meeting. I'm struggling to find any evidence that this has been posted before... Should CES be at ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd support its removal, and would probably oppose individual nominations too. There's no real way of reporting on it without it coming across as product advertising, and that would be a problem even if new TV resolutions were actually important. GRAPPLE ^X 11:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Remove too. If not one annual article is created, the CES doesn't qualify as ITNR anymore. Also, the article is in bad shape and needs vast improvements. --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Remove The article's shape can always be improved but in general the trade show is just promotional information. There perhaps might be a one-off ITNC for CES if there is some revolutionary technology revealed there, but otherwise it's just a commercial exposition. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per Grapple. Neljack (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per others above; if we didn't edit this encyclopedia on electronic devices, I don't think we would even consider it. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it, but if others disagree, feel free to restore it and comment here. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Change/Removal proposal: Millennium Prize

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep rare enough event, and major enough when it happens, to be worth posting. I can't see actively trying to block the posting of any of these if we have a quality article to highlight. --Jayron32 03:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Rare" means it's not recurring. That's why its being suggested for removal, not that when it is actually awarded that it wouldn't be posted (pending article quality). --MASEM (t) 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep just because it isn't frequent, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a clear ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[Kept] Removal proposal: Hugo Award for Best Novel

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 don't know how prestigious Hugo Award is. However, I search nominations all over and found none. I even searched novels in archives; nada. Time to remove it now. --George Ho (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Remove We don't have any other literary awards limited to particular genres. Neljack (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep there is at least one other award that is less prestigious that is limited to fiction, and there is already a previous discussion where the consensus was to add it. Nergaal (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion and the addition were four years ago, Nergaal. George Ho (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Half of the existing entries have an older most recent discussion. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep One of the most recognizable awards for a major genre of fiction, the target article Hugo Award for Best Novel has the FA star, meaning quality is unlikely to become an issue, and the award winners are, more often than not, major literary figures, either before or because of, winning the award. If we have a quality article on the author to go along with it, I can't see blocking the posting of such an item. --Jayron32 03:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayron32. Jusdafax 22:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] ITNR for countries

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.

---

If there is going to ever be some consensus on what countries to include, what do you guys think that criterion might be? Right now, at least a good number of editors thing having all UN members be a bit overly inclusive, while any other criteria might be seen as just too random. Can anyone come up with better criteria than the following?

• countries with at least 1 mil pop (that would be 157 UN members, thus not including Djibouti nor Fiji, but having East Timor and Swaziland). Nergaal (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• either top 100 countries by GDP or top number_UN_members/2 by GDP, as long as the country is listed in at least one such reputable classification (if CIA factbook says it is #150 but World Bank says it is #50 then include it).

Any excluded case would still be able to go at ITNC but not get the ITNR pass. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose all such restrictions. We should make decisions primarily based on article quality. If we had comprehensive articles on leadership of small countries, there's no compelling reason to block posting such items. --Jayron32 03:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all such restrictions as WP:CREEP; decisions should be based on article quality, not arbitrary limits that have been discussed for ages and never agreed to as to what they should be, and it seems unlikely it ever will be. It would be a bias issue to exclude small countries just because they are small; article quality is a different matter. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all such restrictions covered by the former posters. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all such restrictions This is a perennial proposal that has never succeeded for good reasons. I cannot improve on what David Levy wrote more than five years ago:[1]

While some countries obviously have greater international impact than others do, a general election or election of a head of government plays a major role in shaping a country's political landscape (and by extension, its role in the global community). If an article about a relatively small country's general election or election of a head of government is sufficiently written/updated (which often is not the case), we should be delighted to include it in ITN (thereby illustrating our intent to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia, not one that merely covers events occurring in large countries). Given the section's tendency to stagnate, I don't understand why we're discussing ways to reduce the number of updates.

Furthermore, any criterion chosen will be arbitrary. Neljack (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Are faking you all idiots? I did not make any proposal. Can't you read basic English? If there is going to ever be some consensus ... what ... that criterion might be? If you are going to reply then reply the faking question. Nergaal (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are asking us this to not propose something? That seems like a waste of time. As I've indicated, virtually every idea about this has been tossed around(see my link) without consensus, or even consensus that there needs to be any sort of restriction- and there is good reason to not have such a restriction. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am asking what type of criteria might get a 80% oppose instead the 100% opposes that proposals of this type. Nergaal (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we're done here. This conversation isn't getting anywhere, please carefully read the responses. We've talked this over for five or more years, with no conclusion. It would seem better for you to advocate the abolishment of ITNR altogether. (P.S. When you say "Are faking you all idiots? ... Can't you read basic English?", I think the natural response is "Can you write basic English"?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nergaal: Indeed; I don't see the point of this exercise to ask us about something that isn't being proposed and will still have no consensus whether it is 80% or 100%. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And we are telling you that no new criterion will get consensus - for good reasons. If you want people to engage with you, it would be helpful if you didn't engage in personal attacks. Neljack (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Removal proposal: ALL general elections

The point of ITNR is to quick-pass items that get unanimous consensus anyways. I think almost half of the general elections posted do not get consensus at ITNC but the oppose votes are disregarded 'cause is listed at ITNR. I think ITNC and ITNR would be more constructive if all general elections were removed, and every single general election would be discussed on its own merits. If ITN is slow and there is a small election in Marshall Islands that could refresh the timer, then ITNC will decide to post it or not. That way there is not even the restriction that exists now for disputed countries. I don't see a point in treating elections in Poland or Russia any different than those in Taiwan (which currently do not get ITNR pass). Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I thought you weren't proposing anything, but very well. David Levy said it best five years ago(as posted above) and I won't repeat it here, as to why general elections merit posting. If they are not posted, it is because they were not nominated, or due to article quality. ITNR is not a guarantee of posting, nor is it based on "unanimous consent", but on a general consensus. Taiwan's status is disputed, meaning it gets discussed on its own merits(as stated on the ITNR list). The status of Russia and Poland is not disputed. That's pretty clear. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe this has also been tried and failed before, too. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The status of some ITNR entires is disputed AT ITNC so I don't understand what you guys want to do. Dictate people at ITNC what you want? Nergaal (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referencing but the merits of ITNR items should not be disputed at ITNC, but on this page instead. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons above, and to restate that ITNR is not a "quick pass", but a means to avoid repeated discussions on ITN/C on whether specific highlights from certain types of recurring events should be posted, with each nomination weighed on the state of the article for the specific ITN/C and other mitigating factors that may make that specific instance of an ITNR not appropriate that time around but does not invalidate the whole ITNR set (For example, if the election in a rather small country maintained the status quo of incumbents and that everyone expected that result, making it non-interesting news, that might be reason to not post that one time). --MASEM (t) 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You have an example of that happening? Should the ITNR be just for non-status quo elections? Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support giving itnr status to countries smaller than many world cities, or countries with one-party rule, is simply based on egalitarianism or moral equivalence. I can see an argument that competitive elections in, say, G20 countries should be on a shortlist. Posting an election that overthrows a party that has been in power for 70 years makes sense. Just saying the Prime Minister of Ruritania (pop. 750,000) has been re-elected to has 13th two-year term is not something that we need fast-tracked. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • See my comment above in that ITNR should not be seen as a fast-track, just general acceptance of the broad classification of the type of news. The hypothetical example you put out is exactly a one-off case that though may be nominated for ITNR and have an up-to-date article sufficient for front-page posting, may still be considered not significant enough to the world at large, particularly with the incumbent retaining their position. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Limiting elections on the basis of the size of the country would be systemic bias; limiting it by article quality or specific exceptions such as a long-time incumbent winning again, which we already do, is not. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I would counter that to a degree. I agree there's systematic bias to worry about, but we also have to recognize that not every democratic election is necessarily newsworthy, particularly when there's predictable results. But that should be a matter of the discussion at that ITNC and not a reason to remove or alter this ITNR. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I was trying to say that, but not very well it would seem. :) 331dot (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
          • If you guys agree that not every election is newsworthy then I do not understand your rationales. Right now things fly through ITNC because they are listed at ITNR only. I have yet to see an election not posted for anything else than quality of article. You guys have an example in mind? Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
            • I think you're intelligent enough to get the point here. If we removed it from ITNR, we'd have endless arguments over whether the elections in Hungary are more important than those in Belize, or whether the general election in French Guinea is more important than the one in Luxembourg. This is an easy "stop trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist" issue. Not one single reader has ever complained about this kind of blanket coverage of elections (as long as the quality is sufficient). Sometimes we all need to remember that we're here to serve our readers (of which there are tens of millions), not our regular and bitchy editors (of which there are dozens). Move on now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
            • Key to remember is that ITNR is not a quick pass. Article quality must be there (we refused to post the US Open results since no one bothered to improve that article for example), and there are case-by-case discussions to be had, which often lead to identifying aging ITNRs that are a problem (the indifference to the last CES show when it was nominated at ITNC led to its removal from ITRC after discussion was opened here). No news item that is listed at ITNR should be considered a quick-pass just because its article is up to par (though i will note that quality towards featured does play a role) and it happens to be an ITNR topic. It just that ITNR should guide the discussion to be about that specific case, not the general class. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
              • I think it's very generous of you to bother with this explanation, but Nergaal knows this all too well. He's been around long enough (nearly ten years) to get that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Insofar as we have a quality, reasonably comprehensive, well-referenced article on a national general election of any country, I can't see why we would want to block that from being on the main page. Why do we want to hide quality articles about recent events? --Jayron32 19:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Removing ITNR does not block anything. It removes the auto-pass so ITNC editors can actually have a discussion of the quality of the entry. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ITNR is not an "auto-pass", as has been explained. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose seems like a pointy nomination. It's actually ironic that someone would decide to attempt to reduce the throughput at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)